Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Padamata Veeravenkata Satyanarayana Peda Babu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., – Respondent
ORDER :
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 14.07.2008 in Crl.A.No.62 of 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the judgment dated 11.06.2007 in C.C.No.1011 of 2006 passed by the learned Special Judicial I Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise), finding the revisionists guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and convicted the revisionists under Section 248 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each, and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri U. Sai Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact th
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 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 upheld the modification of conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 based on procedural irregularities and mental anguish caused by prolonged litigation.
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 right to a speedy trial includes timely resolution of revisions, and identity of stolen property need not be proven for conviction under theft offenses.
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 right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and undue delays can justify leniency in sentencing, even when evidence supports conviction.
The court ruled that in light of the prolonged trial and time served, the sentence for the offence under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act should be reduced to the period already undergone.
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
