IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 9 4 6 of 2005 Between: Thappatla Satyanarayana … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. Satyanarayana Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Addl. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order (order follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 451 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the III-Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2004 dated 15-2-2005, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, (Old CC.No. 296 of 1995 on the file of Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar) in CC.No. 118 of 2002 dated 30-1-2004, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. On appeal, the learned III- Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate stated hereinabove. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions and at last he confines his argument only with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed mercy of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State. This Court perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not see any justifiable reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by both the courts below and the same is confirmed, but however, the sentence of imprisonment inflicted is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the fine amount paid by the petitioner shall remain unaltered. 6. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 11-11-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 451 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. Date: 11-11-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L