HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.12 OF 2011

Between:-

Ravada Chandra Sekhar Rao, S/o. Raja Rao, R/o. H.No. 304, Huda

Colony, Srikakulam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court,

Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT

****

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 14.02.2025

2

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

_________________________

Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO , J

3

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.12 OF 2011

% 14.02.2025

# Between:

Ravada Chandra Sekhar Rao, S/o. Raja Rao, R/o. H.No. 304, Huda

Colony, Srikakulam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court,

Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Aravala Rama Rao

^Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Neelothpal Ganji, Assistant Public

Prosecutor

< Gist:

> Head Note:

4

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

? Cases referred:

1) (2002) 6 SCC 650

2) AIR 1951 SC 196

3) AIR 1962 SC 1788

4) AIR 1979 SC 1360

5) 2000 (1) BLJR 37

5

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 12/2011

ORDER:

The revision was preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the common

judgment dated 03.01.2011 passed by the learned II Additional District and

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Srikakulam, District in Criminal Appeal

Nos.48 & 52 of 2008, which confirmed the conviction and modified the

sentence from one year simple imprisonment to six months simple

imprisonment. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile

Court, Srikakulam, in C.C.No.147 of 2007, dated 09.06.2008, convicted and

sentenced the revisionist/accused No.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for

one year and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for commission

of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short ‘the I.P.C’).

2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and

the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that

the learned Appellate Court and the Trial Court failed to see that there was

delay in lodging the report to the police; the de-facto complainant bore grudge

against the accused No.2 falsely implicated him; the courts below failed to see

6

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

that conviction of petitioner/accused No.2 for offence under Section 506 (1) of

‘the IPC.’ was not sustainable under law; the courts below failed to see that

Ex.P1 report there was no specific allegations against the petitioner; the

courts below ought to have drawn adverse inference against the case of the

prosecution for suppression of the original report of P.W-1; the courts below

failed to see that the evidence of P.W-1 as he stated that entire incident taken

place at about 3:00 PM on 05.02.2006 as informed by P.W-2 and L.W-4; the

presence of the petitioner/accused No.2 not elucidated in the evidence of

P.W-1 or other prosecution witness; the courts below failed see that the

presence of the petitioner/accused not disclosed and not elicited in the

evidence of the P.W-1 and P.W-2; the court below failed to see that the

prosecution did not place any independent witness; the Courts below failed to

see that in the charge sheet the accused No.1 along with accused came to the

District Court premises and abused L.W-2 to 6 and also threatened them, but

no prosecution witness deposed about the said threatening by

petitioner/accused No.2; the learned Appellate Court failed to see that the

Trail Court held that there was no case made out under Section 294 of ‘the

IPC.’; the Courts below failed to see that the prosecution failed to establish the

ingredients of Section 506 of ‘the IPC.’. The ingredients of Section 506 (1) of

‘the IPC.’ not attract; the Courts below convicted the petitioner merely on

assumptions and presumption, there was no evidence on record; the learned

Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence on record; the Courts below

7

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

failed to see that the evidence of P.W-1 to 3 that accused No.1 was behaving

indecently. Therefore, the petitioner did not commit any offence; the evidence

of P.W-1 to 3 had not corroborated with the other witness. Therefore, the

conviction and sentence of imprisonment and fine for the alleged offence

under Section 506(1) of ‘the I.P.C.’ is unsustainable against the revisionist and

requested to set aside the judgment impugned.

4. Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted

that the learned Appellate Court and the Trail Court had rightly appreciated

the evidence and came to correct conclusion that the prosecution proved the

guilt of the revisionist beyond all reasonable doubt and urged to dismiss the

revision as neither material irregularity was shown and established nor

perverse findings were given by the learned Courts below.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced. I

have perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.52 of 2008 dated

03.01.2011, passed by the learned II Additional District and

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Srikakulam, District, is correct,

legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or

judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what

relief?

7. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v

State of Bihar

1

wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under:

1

(2002) 6 SCC 650

8

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

“12. … We have carefully considered the material on record and we

are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the

evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision

preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in

Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of

acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a

limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a

finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and

extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal

into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method

of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court

that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of

acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice

requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the

prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified

in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has

taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is

neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in

which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this

Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by

the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an

appeal against acquittal by a private party.

13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in

the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to

interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held

that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding

different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in

grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases

is not warranted.”

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla

2

at Paragraph No.10

held as under:

“The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439,

Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private

complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has o right

of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases

where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of

a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This

jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court

2

AIR 1951 SC 196

9

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on

record.”

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP

3

, at

Paragraph No.7 held as under:

“7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an

order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State

may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion

be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is

some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of

law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-

section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of

acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on

the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one

of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself

directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places

limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in

revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be

exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such

exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however,

indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High

Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may

be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still

acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence

which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal court has

wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be

inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the

trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a

compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other

cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional

nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of

acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High

Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the

provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the

High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on

these principles.”

10. P.W-1 testified that on 05.03.2006 at about 5:30 and 6:00 PM he along

with P.Ws-2 and 3 and L.W-4 to 6, who are all Process Servers of District

3

AIR 1962 SC 1788

10

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

Court, Srikakulam, were present in the District Courts building. The revisionist

and the accused No.1/Ambothula Rammohanarao, came on their bike along

with two others to the District Court premises. The revisionist stated that he

was a press reporter and questioned the authority of P.W-1 and also

questioned the activities of the accused No.1 in the morning time. P.W-2 and

P.W-3 stated in their testimony in similar lines to P.W-1.

11. P.W-2 and P.W-3 deposed that the revisionist and other accused had

threatened them with dire consequences in the Court premises. The evidence

of P.Ws-1 to 3 is corroborating in material particulars. Noting concrete was

elicited from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to spurn their evidence

that they were speaking falsehood. There was no misreading of the evidence.

The findings of the learned Courts below are not perverse. There was no

material irregularity in the procedure adopted by the learned Courts below.

12. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable

doubt under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Therefore, the learned Trial Court

rightly convicted the revisionist. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court also

confirmed the same. Re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the

revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, D

Stephens and K Chinnaswamy Reddy.

13. Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ provides discretion to the Court either to

impose sentence which may extend to two years or with a fine or both. The

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded that there were neither prior nor

11

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

subsequent adverse antecedents against the revisionist that he had

committed a similar offence. The revisionist was aged about 27 years at the

time of commission of the offence. He was a reporter. The revision was filed

in the year 2011. Nearly 14 years passed by. The right to speedy trial is a

fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar

4

. This right

includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a

speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar

5

. In the facts and

circumstances of the case interest of justice would be sub-served, if some

lenient view is taken while imposing the sentence of imprisonment on the

revisionist.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The sentence of

simple imprisonment for six months imposed by the learned II Additional

District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Srikakulam is modified into the sentence

already undergone and the payment of fine of Rs.1000/- is enhanced to

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), which excludes the payment of fine

of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) paid by the revisionist. In default

the payment of the fine Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) the

revisionist shall undergo three months of simple imprisonment. No order as to

costs.

4

AIR 1979 SC 1360

5

2000 (1) BLJR 37

12

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_________________________

Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Dt: 14.02.2025

Note: LR copy to be marked

B/o

KMS

13

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2011

Dated 14.02.2025

59

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 12/2011

14.02.2025

W

KMS