Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Challagulla Naga Pushpavathi, A3 vs The State Of A.P., on 18 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1311 OF 2008
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.PC, against the
Judgment and sentence dated 20.06.2008 in Crl.A.No.20 of 2008 on the file
of the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.
Between:
Chandaka Sanyasappadu, S/o Late Suri, Hindu, aged 36 years.
Cultivation, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District.
...Revision Petitioner/Accused
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of
A.P., Hyderabad.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G Rama Gopai
Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following order:
APHC010366792008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1311/2008
Between:
Chandaka Sanyasappadu ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.G RAMAGOPAL
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C‘)
challenging the Judgment dated 20.06.2008 in Crl.A.No.20 of 2008 on the file
of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and
whereunder, the Appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the conviction for
offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC‘)
I
2
Dr. YLR, j
Crl.R.C.No.l311 of 2008
Dated 18.03.2025
but, finding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 323 of ‘the IPC.,’
and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- which was already
paid by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court and holding that the
petitioner is entitled for refund of the excess fine amount of Rs.2,000/- paid.
2. The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, passed the
Judgment dated 13.03.2008 in C.C.No.141 of 2004 finding the petitioner guilty
for the offence under Section 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ and sentencing, him to pay a
fine of Rs.3,000/-.
3. Sri G. Ram Gopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner while
reiterating the grounds of the revision submitted that the prosecution had not
proved the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt; wrongly relied
on the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2; there was inconsistency in the
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2; presence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 at the scene of
offence was doubtful; and urged to allow the revision case. Alternatively, it is
submitted that the alleged offence occurred in the year 2007; nearly more than
1 14 decade passed by; the petitioner is respectable person and he is in the
active politics. Even though he had not committed any offence charged, he
was found guilty and requested to apply the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity ‘the Act’) by showing lenience.
4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond
3
4 Dr. YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.l311 of 20Q8
Dated 18.03.2025 ,
reasonable doubt and that is the reason why, the learned Trial Court and also
the Appellate Court found the petitioner guilty and appropriately sentenced the
petitioner: there was concurrent conviction, which need not be disturbed by
invoking the powers under Sections 379 and 401 ‘of the Cr.P.C.,’ and urged to
dismiss the revision case.
5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.20 of 2008, dated
20.06.2008, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Visakhapatnam, is correct, legal and proper with respect to its
finding, sentence, or Judgment, and there are any material
irregularities? And to what relief?”
7. To prove the guilt of the petitioner the prosecution had examined
P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 5 and M.0.1. It is the case of the
prosecution, P.W.1-Smt. Lenka Narayana deposed that P.W.2 is her husband
and the petitioner also used to reside besides their house in the village and
they were also having lands side by side within the limits of Anandapuram.
She further stated that about more than two years ago, on one day a quarrel
ensued at their fields in connection with a bund dispute existing between their
lands, and on that day at about 4.00 p.m., when she along with her husband
went to the fields the petitioner told that they had no right to come there as
they have no lands there. Then the petitioner beat with stick on the head of
4
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.l311 of 2008
Dated 18.03.2025
her husband due to which her husband sustained bleeding injury on his
forehead. Then she took him to hospital for treatment. Thereafter she had
gone to the police station and gave Ex.P.1 report and she identified M.0.1 as
the stick with which the accused beat her husband.
8. The learned Trial Court, having minutely examined evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, the material objects, and the exhibits, found the
petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ and
sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. However, the learned Appellate
Court in the appeal found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section
323 of ‘the IPC.,’ and sentenced him to pay Rs.1,000/-. This Court cannot
appreciate the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution like a Second
Appellate Court as per the Judgments referred as under.
9. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of BiharVhereinat Paragraph Nos. 12 &
13 it is held as under:
“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‘(2002) 6 see 650
5
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.l311 of 2008Dated 18.03.2025 .
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 aDpreciation 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 i/i/as 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.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Stephens v Nosibolla^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 has taken a wrong view of the law or mls-
appreciated the evidence on record. ”
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP^ 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, corjvert the finding of‘AIR 1951 SC 196
“AIR 1962 SC 1788
6Dr. YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.l311 of 2008
Dated 18.03.2025acquittal 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 canproperly 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.”
12. There is no misreading of the evidence. There were no material
irregularities in the case. Therefore, the conviction under Section 323 of ‘the
IPC.,’ shall be sustained. It is brought to the notice that there is a Civil Suit
pending in which, injunction was granted in favor of the petitioner against
P.Ws.1 and 2. It is a fact that there are Civil disputes pending between the
petitioner and P.Ws.1 and 2. This is a fit case where the provisions of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (‘the Act’) can be invoked inasmuch as the
punishment prescribed for Section 323 of ‘the IPC.,’ is either sentence of
imprisonment or fine or both.
13. As per Section 3 of ‘the Act’, the petitioner can be released after due
admonition since, the, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor ha^ also submitted
Dated 18.03.2025
that there were no previous or subsequent instances of conviction sustained
against the petitioner either on the similar charges or on the different charges.
Taking into account, the nature of the offence and the character of the
petitioner, it is expedient that instead of sustaining sentence of payment of fine
of Rs. 1,000/- it is proper and appropriate to release the petitioner on the
probation of good conduct after due admonition.
14. Section 4 of ‘the Act’ empowers this Court to release the petitioner on
probation of good conduct inasmuch as the petitioner was not charged with an
offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Therefore, this Court
finds that it is a fit case to apply the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the Act’.
15. Section 12 of ‘the Act’ emphasizes that sentence of payment of fine
shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction for the offence
under Section 323 ‘of the IPC‘.
16. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of
maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 323 ‘of the IPC.,’
while setting aside the sentence of payment of Rs. 1,000/- by applying the
provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the Act’ and also Section 360 of ‘the Cr.P.C‘.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/- K TATA RAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To.
1. The District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam
District.(with records)
*2.
The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam
District
3.
One CC to Sri G Rama Gopal Advocate [OPUC]
4.
Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati [OUT]
5.
The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
6. Three CD Copies
SAM
vna
m
HIGH COURT
DATED:18/03/2025
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1311 of 2008
7 a:
O
0 <1 APR 2025-
^ ★ Op
Current Section . ^DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC