Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the above CrlRC by setting aside the orders dt. 19-7-2013 made in CrlA.No.334/2011 on the file of the III Additional district & Sessions judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District Confirming the Judgment dt. 11-08-2011 made in CC.NO.129/2007 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 301 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 108 days in presenting the CrlRc. and pass.

IA NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 341 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense withthe filing of the certifed copy of the Judgment dt. 11-08-2011 made in CC.NO.129/2007 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, kakinada, East Godavari District and pass.

IA NO: 3 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 342 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the operation of the Judgment dt. 19-7-2013 made in CrlA.NO.334/2011 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari district and pass.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A K KISHORE REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:194 OF 2014

ORDER:

1. The instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the Judgment dated 19.07.2013 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, in Criminal Appeal No.334 of 2011, whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, in C.C.No.129 of 2007, vide judgment dated 11.08.2011, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟ for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a single point before this Court and submits that the attending facts and circumstances of this particular case do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. He further submits that the term “taking away from the lawful guardian of the prosecutrix” has not been made out here. He pointed out that the prosecutrix was examined as P.W.5. During her examination before the trial court, she categorically stated that she loved the accused. He submits that the prosecution case suggests that on 15.02.2007, in the evening, while the prosecutrix went to a telephone booth to call her friend, the accused approached her to marry him and she willingly proceeded with the accused to Vijayawada, where they stayed for one day. Thereafter, they proceeded to Tirupati, where they spent for three days and then came back to the house of the accused and stayed there. Subsequently, the investigating officer has recovered the prosecutrix from the house of the accused.

3. He submits that during entire evidence of prosecutrix before the police as well as before the learned trial court, it has been confirmed that there were no physical intimacy between the petitioner and the prosecutrix during the entire period. He further submits that when the prosecutrix first left the telephone booth with the petitioner, the said place was crowded, however prosecutrix did not raise any hue and cry. Moreover, during their long st