THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2129 OF 2004 ORDER: Petitioner herein was tried in C.C.No.2 of 2000 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Alamuru for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. Having assessed the said evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly acquitted him of the said offence, but, however, found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 337 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Petitioner questioned the said judgment dated 12.03.2003 by filing criminal appeal No.50 of 2003 and the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry by his judgment dated 05.10.2004 remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The same is questioned in this revision. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 05.12.1999 at 6.30 a.m. P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased were going to Mandapeta from Yedida villge on their cycles and when they reached near the godowns of Sanka family, the petitioner drove the lorry bearing No. AEW 1899 loaded with paddy in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn ad hit the cycle of the deceased who was going in front of the lorry. As a result, the deceased died on the spot. In that connection a case in Cr.No.206 of 1999 was registered by Alamuru Police and after investigation the police filed the charge sheet. Heard. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this court is of the view that the said judgment passed by the appellate court is perverse. When the petitioner approached the appellate court stating that the said conviction under section 337 of IPC is illegal, in my considered view, the appellate court shall restrict itself as to whether the said finding is justified or not and it cannot remand the matter to find out as to whether the petitioner committed the said offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC or not. Further, the alleged offence took place on 05.12.1999. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner was produced before the trial court and though bail was granted to him on 08.12.1999, as he could not produce the required sureties he was in jail for two days. Taking the totality of above circumstances this court is of the view that this revision can be disposed of setting aside the judgment of the appellate court dated 05.10.2004. --------------- 24.03.2011 Kvsn him on 08.12.1999, as he could not produce the required sureties he was in jail for two days. Taking the totality of above circumstances this court is of the view that the judgment of the appellate court dated 05.10.2004 is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. However, as the petitioner was in jail for two days and as the sentence imposed against him by the trial court for the offence punishable under section 337 of IPC is only simple imprisonment for three months and since the offence is of the year 1999, this court takes a lenient view and reduced the said sentence to that of the period which the petitioner had already undergone. This revision is accordingly disposed of. --------------- 24.03.2011 Kvsn