Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y.LAKSHMANARAO
Katravath Bapya Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [the Cr.P.C.] challenging the judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2008 on the file of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Narasaraopet [the Appellate Court] confirming the judgment dated 22.04.2008 passed in C.C.No.236 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala [the Trial Court] whereby and whereunder the Petitioner/Accused No.2 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 [the A.P.P. Act] and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
2. Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, argued that even though necessary ingredients of offence under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of ‘the A.P.P. Act’ are not made out, the Petitioner was convicted; evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution is inconsistent and not corroborat
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and undue delays can justify leniency in sentencing, even when evidence supports conviction.
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
The public prosecutor must independently assess the legitimacy of withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C, ensuring it serves public justice.
Point of law : Applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are now coming in torrent and thus exercise of the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and not in routine manner.
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....
(1) Victim of offence cannot file Revision Petition against order of acquittal.(2) Charge-sheet filed by Head of investigation team of CID before jurisdictional Magistrate, is not a charge-sheet in e....
Point of Law : Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot act as a post office as the Magistrate has to apply his mind with regard to the fact as to whether the cas....
A Magistrate can't order for re-investigation after a final report; only further investigation is permissible under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on witness testimonies, consideration of defense evidence, and rejection of the plea of false implication in upholding the con....
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
