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.

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 falsely implicated him; the courts below failed to see that conviction of petitioner/accused No.2 for offence under Section 506 (1) of ‘the IPC.’ was not sustainable under law; the courts below failed to see that Ex.P1 report there was no specific allegations against the petitioner; the courts below ought to have drawn adverse inference against the case of the prosecution for suppression of the original report of P.W-1; the courts below failed to see that the evidence of P.W-1 as he stated that entire incident taken place at about 3:00 PM on 05.02.2006 as informed by P.W-2 and L.W-4; the presence of the petitioner/accused No.2 not elucidated in the evidence of P.W-1 or other prosecution witness; the courts below failed see that the presence of the petitioner/accused not disclosed and not elicited in the evidence of the P.W-1 and P.W-2; the court below failed to see that the prosecution did not place any independent witness; the Courts below failed to see that in the charge sheet the accused No.1 along with accused came to the District Court premises and abused L.W-2 to 6 and also threatened them, but no prosecution witness deposed about the said threatening by petitioner/accused No.2; the learned Appellate Court failed to see that the Trail Court held that there was no case made out under Section 294 of ‘the IPC.’; the Courts below failed to see that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of Section 506 of ‘the IPC.’. The ingredients of Section 506 (1) of ‘the IPC.’ not attract; the Courts below convicted the petitioner merely on assumptions and presumption, there was no evidence on record; the learned Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence on record; the Courts below failed to see that the evidence of P.W-1 to 3 that accused No.1 was behaving indecently. Therefore, the petitioner did not commit any offence; the evidence of P.W-1 to 3 had not corroborated with the other witness. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment and fine for the alleged offence under Section 506 (1) of ‘the I.P.C.’ is unsustainable against the revisionist and requested to set aside the judgment impugned.

4. Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Publi