IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y.Lakshmana Rao
Palisetti Satyanarayana, Visakhapatnam – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P Rep. by P.P. Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 29.06.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby and whereunder the conviction imposed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram in C.C.No.142 of 2005 dated 13.03.2007 for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) was confirmed, but the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ was modified and reduced into Rigorous Imprisonment for three months; the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 338 of ‘the I.P.C’, was modified and reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.
2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.
3. Ms. V.Kranthi, learned counsel, representing Sri S.V.S.S.Sivaram, learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist reiterated
The court upheld the conviction under IPC sections while emphasizing limitations on revisional jurisdiction and the right to a speedy trial, reducing the sentence due to the petitioner's health and t....
The court upheld the modification of conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 based on procedural irregularities and mental anguish caused by prolonged litigation.
The court confirmed the conviction for negligence under Section 304-A IPC but reduced the sentence from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment due to the Revisionist's age....
Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, limiting interference to exceptional cases only where manifest injustice or procedural errors exist, emphasizing the importance of the trial co....
The court ruled that while the conviction under Section 411 of the IPC was upheld, the sentence was modified to one year due to the petitioner's age and health, emphasizing the right to a speedy tria....
The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction should not disturb concurrent findings unless there is a manifest injustice.
The court confirmed the conviction under the A.P. Excise Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and procedural adherence in the criminal justice process.
The court upheld convictions for theft while modifying sentences based on the right to a speedy trial, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited and not to be exercised lightly; it will not intervene unless clear errors in the law or significant injustices are evident.
The court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC, affirming that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of an identification p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.