Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y.Lakshmana Rao
Kamanuri Narasimha Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of AP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 12) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court considers the points for judgement. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. revision powers and legal standards. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion on the delay and rights. (Para 16) |
| 6. final order and dismissal of costs. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.
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 31.10.2012 in Crl.A.No.157 of 2012 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, allowing the criminal appeal in part confirming the conviction and sentence against the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’), vide judgment dated 01.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Podili, in C.C.No.190 of 2008 setting aside conviction and sentence against the petitioner, A2 to A10 for the offences under Section 353 read with 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and conviction and sentence against A2 to A10 for the offence under
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 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 court upheld convictions for theft while modifying sentences based on the right to a speedy trial, 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 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....
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 High Court's power to set aside an acquittal is limited to exceptional cases with glaring defects or manifest errors, as established in precedent.
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
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
