THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.823 OF 2005 Between : Syed Karimulla ....PETITIONER A N D The State of A.P. …RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.823 OF 2005 ORDER: This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment, dated 07.06.2005, in Crl.A.No.543 of 2004, on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur at Narasaraopet, whereunder and whereby, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment recorded in the judgment, dated 8.09.2003, in S.C.No.616 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nararsaraopet, were confirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10-03-2000 at about 10.30 P.M. when the accused was consuming liquor at Siva Sai Wines, police officials came to the spot and seeing them all the persons fled away, except the A.1. The police officials informed to A.1 to vacate the shop, but he did not obey the orders and pushed P.W.1. Thus, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after arguing for some time confined his arguments only in connection with question of sentence. He also placed reliance on the facts of the case. The facts of the case are as follows: On 10.03.2000 at about 10.30 P.M. while P.W.1 moving in the town along with P.W.5 and P.C.1606 to maintain law and order found brandy shop by name Siva Sai Wines kept opened and customers drinking liquor. When P.W.1 went to the shop all the customers except A.1 fled away from the shop. P.W.1 asked A.1 to vacate the shop but, he did not vacate the shop. When P.W.1 tried to convince A.1 to send him out of the shop, A.1 pushed P.W.1, went on the road and squatted on the road along with his followers and stopped the vehicular movement. In spite of the intervention of P.W.1 to convince A.1 and his followers A.1 put a deaf year and resorted to stop the traffic for about 15 minutes and caused inconvenience to the passengers”. 5. On a perusal of the record and also the evidence adduced by the witnesses, it is seen that the two occurrences one arising out of the earlier occurrence. The case is being registered for the said two occurrences. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he involved only in earlier occurrence, wherein he pushed the Police constable. Except that no overt acts are attributed against the petitioner herein. 6. Considering the same, this Court is modifying the sentence recorded by the trial Court against the petitioner while confirming the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. The sentence of imprisonment is set aside and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. within a period of eight weeks from today. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of with the above modification of sentence. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO SEPTEMBER 17, 2010. YVL