IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Achenavalli Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State Of A.P. – Respondent
ORDER :
(Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.)
The three Criminal Revision Cases are heard and disposed of by this Common Order inasmuch as the petitioner is same in the three cases.
2. Crl.R.C.No.1762 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C ’) challenging the judgment dated 03.10.2008 in Crl.A.No.33 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the judgment dated 12.01.2006 in C.C.No.122 of 2005 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C .,’ for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.
3. Crl.R.C.No.1766 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C ’) challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2008 in Crl.A.No.199 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the judgment dated 11.07.2005 in
The court upheld convictions for theft while modifying sentences based on the right to a speedy trial, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
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 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 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....
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
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 affirmed that minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
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....
The court emphasized the significance of injured witnesses' testimony in convicting and modifying sentences, reaffirming the stance that reliance on interested witnesses is acceptable if corroborated....
The right to a speedy trial includes timely resolution of revisions, and identity of stolen property need not be proven for conviction under theft offenses.
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.