Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y.LAKSHMANA RAO
Ravada Chandra Sekhar Rao S/o Raja Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The revision was preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the common judgment dated 03.01.2011 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Srikakulam, District in Criminal Appeal Nos.48 & 52 of 2008, which confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence from one year simple imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam, in C.C.No.147 of 2007, dated 09.06.2008, convicted and sentenced the revisionist/accused No.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for commission of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’).
2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned Appellate Court and the Trial Court failed to see that there was delay in lodging the report to the police; the de-facto complainant bore grudge against the accused No.2 fa
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.
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
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.
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 upheld convictions for theft while modifying sentences based on the right to a speedy trial, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Once an appeal against acquittal is dismissed on merits, a subsequent revision against the same judgment cannot be entertained.
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 right to appeal granted to victims is prospective and applies only to judgments issued on or after December 31, 2009; earlier judgments can only be challenged through revisions.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but modified the excessive sentence to time already served, emphasizing limitations on revisional jurisdiction.
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
