1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under S.397 and S.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'CrPC'), is preferred by the petitioner / accused, challenging the Judgment dated 03.08.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.12 of 2011 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (for short, 'the 1st Appellate Court'). By the said Judgment, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur (for short, the 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.353 of 2009 dated 10.01.2011.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
On 14.10.2009, at approximately 7:30 p.m., PW.1, the Village Revenue Officer (V.R.O.) of Holagunda village and Mandal, proceeded to Gajjahalli village along with PW.2 and PW.3 to serve a land ceiling notice on the accused. Upon service of the notice, the accused became agitated, slapped PW.1 on the left cheek, and obstructed him from discharging his official duties. As a result of the assault, PW.1 temporarily lost consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, he observed that blood was oozing from his left ear, allegedly due to the assault by the accused. The incident was witnessed by PW.2, PW.3, and PW.5. PW.4, the medical officer who examined PW.1, issued a wound certificate stating that the injuries sustained were simple in nature. Based on a report lodged by PW.1, PW.6 registered a case in Crime No.127/09. Upon completion of the investigation, E. Chandrasekhar Goud, SubInspector of Police, Holagunda, filed a charge sheet against the accused.

4. The learned Trial Court took cognizance under S.323 and S.353 of the IPC against the accused. Upon the accused's appearance, copies of relevant documents were provided as required under S.207 of the CrPC. The accused was then examined under S.251 of the CrPC, where the substance of the accusation was explained to him in Telugu regarding the offences under S.353 and S.323 of the IPC. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty, claiming his innocence.

5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under S.313 CrPC, explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses against the accused in Telugu. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and stated that he had no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

6. The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under S.323 of IPC as stated supra vide its Judgment, dated 10.01.2011 in C.C.No.353 of 2009 and convicted the petitioner / accused and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three (03) months for the offence under S.323 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.

7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2011 before the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2011.

8. Heard Sri Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner / accused, and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent / State.

9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petition is pressed only to the extent of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, and not against the conviction