THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1410 of 2005 Date: 22.09.2011 Between: K. Venkat Reddy … Petitioner AND K. Narayan Reddy and 10 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1410 of 2005 ORDER: The revision is laid by PW.2 impugning the order of the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, who confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 147 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and ordered the accused to be released under the provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 2. There are as many as 10 accused. The offence occurred on 26.11.1993. A.1 was 45 years old by then. A.5 was 65 years old at the time of the commission of the offence. Sri V. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2/A.1 & A.2 submitted that the accused and PW.2 are interrelated. 3. The case of the prosecution is that it was an incident on 26.11.1993 at about 7 a.m. when A.1 to A.10 allegedly attacked and caused injuries to PWs.2 and 3. Taking into consideration the age, nature of the offence and the date of offence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge would appear to have considered it appropriate to invoke the provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 4. Sri A. Sanjeeva Redy, learned counsel for PW.2 sternly opposed the order of the learned Sessions Judge contending that it is not a fit case for invocation of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. As pointed out, the offence occurred in 1993. 18 years have elapsed from the date of offence in the present case. Added to it, one of the accused is a senior citizen and another accused has also perhaps become a senior citizen. There is no allegation that a similar incident occurred again. I, therefore, consider that it is not a fit case where the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be reversed. Further, there is no error apparent on record in the judgment of the appellate Judge. I, consequently, see no merits in this revision. 5. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 22.09.2011 Isn