Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kollipalli Srinivasa Raju, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 20 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.365 OF 2012
Between:-
Kollipalli Srinivasa Raju ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap Rep By Its PP Hyd ...RESPONDENT
****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 20.02.2025
2
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
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.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.365 OF 2012
% 20.02.2025
# Between:
Kollipalli Srinivasa Raju ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap Rep By Its PP Hyd ...RESPONDENT
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Ramakrishna Akurathi
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri K.Sandeep, Assistant Public Prosecutor
< Gist:
> Head Note:
4
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
? Cases referred:
1) 1973 Crl.L.J 766
2) AIR 1988 SCC 1789
3) 1996 CRI.L.J.2720
4) AIR 1999 SCC 1482
5) (2002) 6 SCC 650
6) AIR 1951 SC 196
7) AIR 1962 SC 1788
8) AIR 1979 SC 1360
9) (1999) 7 SCC 604
5
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 365/2012
ORDER:
The Revision has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C‘) against the judgment dated
01.03.2012 in Crl.A.No.204 of 2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Prakasam Division at Ongole, whereby and whereunder the judgment
dated 20.10.2010 in C.C.No.235 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, finding the revisionist guilty for the
contravention under Section 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘PFA Act‘) read with Sub rule 28 Rule 49 of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (‘the PFA Rules’) for the
offences punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of ‘the PFA Act‘ and convicted
the revisionist under Section 255 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
month
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist
and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna, the learned counsel for the Revisionist, while
reiterating the grounds raised in the revision, had argued that the shelf life of the
6
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
packaged drinking water was 21 days as per the information on the sachet and
according to PW.1, he had seized or purchased the packaged water sachets from the
revisionist on 21.04.2005 and therefore, it could be said that after 21 days from
21.04.2005 i.e., after 12.05.2005, the said water should not be used for analysis, but
as per Ex.P-9 analyst report, the water sample was analyzed on 19.05.2005 and
therefore, the analysis had no value and the analyst report should not be used
against the accused and further, the accused lost his valuable right under Section 13
(2) of ‘the PFA Act,’ but the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the same and
convicted the revisionist erroneously and therefore, the conviction and sentence
passed cannot be sustained.
4. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana in Resham Singh v. State of Punjab1, for the proposition that conviction of
accused on the report of public analyst was unsustainable, if the accused was
deprived of his valuable right under Section 13(2) of ‘the PFA Act,’.
5. It is further argued that as on the date of purchasing the sample the
revisionist did not manufacture any packaged drinking water for the purpose of
sale and he was only conducting a trial run. Further, he contends that the
accused did not fully establish the unit as on the date of sample and he did not
commence any sale of his product. Further, he contends that the Food
Inspector-P.W.1 demanded the revisionist for illegal gratification, when he
failed to fulfill the demands; he was falsely implicated in this case. He further
1
1973 Crl.L.J 766
7
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
contends that though P.W.1 deposed that he purchased 36 sachets of
packaged drinking water for Rs. 14.40 Ps, the cost of the each packets M.R.P.
is Rs.1.50 Ps. Even the cash bill-Ex.P.2 is the printed form, though the case of
the prosecution is that the accused manufactured adulterated drinking water in
his unit M/s. Sri Surya Enterprises and the accused is the proprietor of the said
firm. No material is available on record to show that as on the date of
inspection, the accused established the unit and commenced his business.
Further, he contends that the P.W.2 in his cross examination categorically
deposed that as on the date of the inspection, M/s. Sri Surya Enterprises did
not sell any of their products in Martur village. After obtaining permission he
intended to commence the sales. Therefore, it is clear that the accused never
manufactured any packaged drinking water for the purpose of sale and the
P.W.1 intentionally collected the samples from the product produced at the
time of trial run and he forcibly obtained the signature of the accused and filed
all the material documents and foisted this false case and urged to allow the
revision petition.
6. Alternatively, it is submitted that the revisionist at the time of the alleged
offence was aged about 27 years and was a new entrepreneur with lot of
gusto started the business; nearly 20 years have passed by; he had suffered a
lot of mental agony, he stopped the business and he is doing cultivation; now
he is aged about 52 years; he has been suffering from seven aliments due to
8
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider the case of the
revisionist sympathetically in the lines of the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh2, Des Raj v.
State of Haryana3, Haripapda Das v. State of West Bengal4, Swaroopa
Ram v. State of Rajasthan and requested to impose sentence which he had
already undergone, while volunteering that the sentence of payment of fine of
Rs.1,000/- may be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- as a measure of penance and
urged to dispose of the revision.
7. Per contra, Sri K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
argued that on two grounds, the revisionist had challenged the impugned
judgment of the Appellate Court. However, the learned Trial Court and the
Appellate Court had appreciated the evidence and found the revisionist
indulged with the contravention of the Section 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) of ‘the PFA
Act,’ r/w rule 49 (28) of ‘the PFA Rules,’ and committed the offence under
Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of ‘the PFA Act,’ there was no misreading of the evidence;
no perverse findings were recorded; there are no material irregularities to
interfere with the impugned judgment; even though mediator-PW-2 did not
support the case of the prosecution, the sole testimony of the Food Inspector,
2
AIR 1988 SCC 1789
3
1996 CRI.L.J.2720
4
AIR 1999 SCC 1482
9
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
which is inspiring confidence, trust worthy and voluntary, hence the conviction
should be sustained, and urged to dismiss the revision.
8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
9. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.204 of 2010 dated
01.03.2012, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Prakasam Division, Ongole, is correct, legal, and proper with
respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any
material irregularities? And to what relief?”
10. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad
Singh v State of Bihar5 wherein at 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 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 because5
(2002) 6 SCC 650
10
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025the 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.”
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla6 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 mis-appreciated the evidence on
record.”
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP 7, 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 this6
AIR 1951 SC 196
7
AIR 1962 SC 1788
11
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025jurisdiction 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.”
13. The proved facts in brief of the case are that the revisionist/accused was
the proprietor of M/s.Sri Surya Enterprises, a manufacturing unit of packaged
drinking water, Martur and manufacturing Coolex Purities Dimmking Water. On
12
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
21.04.2005, at about 12.30 hours, S.A.Viswanadha Reddy, the Food Inspector
(PW.1) along with his Attender Sri B.Ch.Ramulu visited M/s. Sri Surya
Enterprises. At that time, the accused was present and was looking after his
business. The Food Inspector had disclosed his identity and purpose of his
visit and called one T.Anjaneyulu (PW.2) to act as a mediator. In the course of
inspection, he found 30 cans of purified drinking water, each can containing 12
liters, and 500 sachets of purified drinking water, each sachet containing 250
ml., in packaged condition for sale purpose of human consumption with the
label particulars on sachets and suspected the quality of the said purified
water to be adulterated.
14. Further, it is proved that the Food Inspector had purchased 36 sachets
for Rs.14.40 paise, and obtained Cash receipt (Ex.P-2) from the accused and
served Form-VI notice (Ex.P-3) on the accused disclosing his intention to take
the sample for analysis and obtained acknowledgment for the said service of
notice and then, divided the said 36 sachets into three equal parts and kept
each part into a clean, dry and empty plastic box separately without tampering
those sachets and closed those boxes and then tied the same with twine and
attired their label bearing Code number and serial No.ZIII/PKM/P1/20334
/2005 on each sample and wrapped in a thick brown paper and folded the
ends neatly and affixed a paper slip bearing Code Number and Serial No.
L(H)A ZIII/PKN/20334/2005 around each sample and obtained the signature of
13
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
the accused and the mediator T.Anjaneyutu (PW.2) on each sample ensuring
that both the paper slip and wrapper carry a part of the signatures and then
tied each sample packet with twine both above and across and affixed four
specimen impression seals with sealing wax duly covering the knot at the end.
When he questioned, the accused disclosed that, he did not obtain the BIS
Certification for manufacturing packaged drinking water and also did not obtain
P.F.A. license. The Food Inspector prepared a Panchanama (Ex.P-5) for the
proceedings that took place in lifting the sample and read over its contents to
the accused in the presence of the mediator T. Anjaneyulu (PW.2) and the
same was attested by the accused and T.Anjaneyulu (PW.2)
15. Furthermore, it is proved that on 23.04.2005, the Food Inspector had
handed over one part of sample along with Form VII Memorandum (ExP-6) to
the Public Analyst, Hyderabad, in person under acknowledgement (Ex.P-7)
and deposited the other parts of the sample along with Form VII Memorandum
with Local Health Authority-Zone-III, Guntur, under acknowledgment. On
28.05.2005 he received the Public Analyst report No. 163/2005, dated
12.05.2005 (Ex.P-9) along with covering letter No. 1226/SFL/2005, dated
19.05.2005 (Ex.P-10) through the Assistant Food Controller and L (H) A,
Zone-III, Guntur. In his report, the analyst opined that the sample was without
BIS Certification and thus violates Rule 49 (28) and also did not conform to the
14
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
standards of Aerobic Microbial count and Coli form count, and it is therefore
adulterated.
16. Furthermore, it is proved that on 10.06.2005, the Food Inspector
submitted a detailed report (ExP-11) along with the copies of case documents
to the Director, Food (Health) Administration, Hyderabad, requesting him to
issue further orders and subsequently, on 05.09.2005, he received the letter
dated 27.08.2005 (Ex.P-12) from the Director, Food (Health) Administration,
Hyderabad, for institution of prosecution, against the accused for the
contraventions mentioned under Sections 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) of ‘the PFA Act‘,
and for violation of Sub rule 28 of Rule 49 of ‘the PFA Rules,’ punishable
under Section 16 (1)(a) (i) of ‘the PFA Act,’ for the sale of adulterated Coolex
Purified Drinking Water. The revisionist had manufactured and sold
adulterated Coolex Purified Drinking Water in violation of the provisions of ‘the
PFA Act,’ and ‘the PFA Rules,’ and rendered him liable for punishment. P.W.2
and the revisionist belong to the same village and his failure to support the
case of the prosecution is explicable. However, it must be stated that, the
failure of P.W.2 to support the version of the prosecution was not of much
significance, in view of the fact that the evidence of P.W.1 was quiet believable
and unswerving.
17. Indubitably, after receiving the notice, the revisionist took no steps in put
into effect of his right to get the sample analyzed by the Central Food
15
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
Laboratory. In that situation, it is very difficult rather impossible to agree with
the contention that the revisionist lost his right under Section 13(2) of ‘PFA
Act.’ The decision in Resham Singh supra relied upon by the learned counsel
for the revisionist is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the instant case.
18. Evidence is crystal clear that there was contravention of the provisions.
There was no misreading of the evidence in finding the revisionist guilty by the
trial court and the Appellate Court. There are no perverse findings. The
learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the
evidence and found the revisionist guilty for the offences charged. There are
no grounds to interfere with the conviction. Therefore, it is held that the
conviction is maintained for the offence under Section 16(1) of ‘the PFA Act‘.
19. Coming to the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the
revisionist, the offence took place in the year 2005, nearly 20 years have
passed by. The revisionist was 27 years at the time of commission of the
offence. Record reveals that he was a new entrepreneur started the
establishment with zeal and enthusiasm. Indeed, license and certification is
required as per ‘the PFA,’ Act and ‘the Rules’, which he had not obtained.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Braham Dass supra in para Nos. 5 & 6
held as under:
16
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025“5. Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant
had been acquitted by the trial court and the High Court while
reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge has
not make clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place
about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has
already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any
useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this
point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence,
though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view
of such matter.
6. While dismissing the appeal, we would, however, limit the
sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and
sustain. the fine along with the default sentence.”
21. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Des Raj supra in para Nos.8
& 9 held as under:
“8. The respective arguments have been considered carefully. It is
not disputed that the sample in question was taken on 29-8-1987 and
the prosecution was launched against him on 9-10-1987. After a long
and protracted trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by
order dated November 7, 1992 which has been confirmed by the
appellate Court by order dated November 17, 1995. In other words,
the petitioner has been undergoing the turmoil of a criminal
prosecution for the last about eight years.
9. Now, it is well settled that the right to speedy and expeditious trial
is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under
the Constitution. Fundamental rights are not a teasing illusion to be
mocked at. These are meant to be enforced and made a reality. Fair,
just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the
Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right
to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial
is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does
not make it any-the-less the right of the accused. Right to speedy
trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the
stage of investigation, inquiry trial, appeal, revision and retrial. This is
how the Courts shall understand this right, and have gone to the
extent of quashing the prosecution after such inordinate delay in
concluding the trial of an accused keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case. Keeping a person in suspended
animation for 8 years or more without any case at all cannot be with
the spirit of the procedure established by law. It is correct that
17
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is
prescribed by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article
21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the
right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a
role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which
he undergoes on account of protracted trial due to the fault of the
prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary
jurisdiction.”
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Haripada Das supra in para No.6 held as
under:
“6. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant
under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated
mustard oil. Although in the samples drawn by the Food Inspector,
no impurity or objects injurious to health could be detected but it was
found that the saponification value exceeded marginally than the
prescribed limit and the B.R. reading also exceeded marginally than
the prescribed limit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and also considering that the appellant was released on bail by
this Court long back and because of the protracted litigation up to
this Court he has also suffered a lot of mental agony and also
financial hardship and also considering the fact that he had already
undergone imprisonment for more than three weeks, we feel that in
the facts of the case the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of
imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. We,
however, direct that besides the fine imposed by the Courts below,
the appellant will have to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/- within four weeks
from today, in default he will have to undergo imprisonment for three
months. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The bail bonds
stand discharged.”
23. The learned counsel for the revisionist as also relied on the judgment of
the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhapur in Swaroopa Ram v. State of
Rajasthan in CRL.R.P.No.115 of 2007 dated 05.02.2025 wherein at page
No.9 it is held as under:
“9. This Court finds that the petitioner was a milk vendor and
there is no reason available with it to disbelieve the report of the
Public Analyst, wherein the sample of milk drawn from the petitioner
18
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025was found to be Adulterated. However, in the opinion of this Court,
since the incident relates to the year 1997 and the petitioner has
suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial for about 27 years
coupled with the fact that the petitioner has spent some period in
custody, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded to him by
the learned trial Court for the offence under section 7/16 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.”
24. The prosecution proved the guilt of the revisionist beyond all reasonable
doubt for the offence charged. 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 this revision case as
laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, D Stephens and K
Chinnaswamy Reddy.
25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home
Secretary State of Bihar8 it is held that right to speedy trial which includes
hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article
21 of the Constitution. 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 Bihar9. The right of speedy trial of the revisionist
is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a
reasonable time. Therefore, the delay is also one of the grounds to modify the
impugned order.
8
AIR 1979 SC 1360
9
(1999) 7 SCC 604
19
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
26. As stated supra, the occurrence took place about 20 years ago. The
revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted
prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 20 years.
Therefore, it is appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to
be reduced to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by
the revisionist.
27. Following the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Braham
Dass and Haripada Das, it is a fit case where some lenience should be taken
in regard to maintainability of the sentence of imprisonment. The learned Trial
Court imposed Rs.1,000/- (thousand rupees only) which was confirmed by the
learned Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the revisionist volunteered
that the revisionist would pay Rs.20,000/- including the Rs.1000/- paid by the
revisionist, while preferring the appeal before Appellate Court, as a measure of
penance. The said voluntary statement is recorded and approved.
28. In view of the obtaining peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
the revision is disposed of, while confirming and maintaining the conviction,
but reducing the sentence which the revisionist had already undergone, and
modifying the sentence of payment of fine by enhancing from Rs.1000/- to
Rs.20,000/-.
29. The revisionist shall pay remaining fine of Rs.19,000/- within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of this order, before the learned Additional
20
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2012
20/02/2025
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki as the revisionist had already paid
an amount of fine Rs.1000/- while preferring the appeal before the learned
Appellate Court. In default of payment of Rs.19,000/- the Revisionist shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months. The bail bonds
shall stand discharged after payment of enhanced fine amount. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 20.02.2025
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o
LSP
[ad_1]
Source link