##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:41111 APHC010009272008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 963/2008 Between:

1. G URUVILLI MADHUKESAVA REDDY @ MADHU, S/O YENDU, R/O MELIAPUTTI VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF A P, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT 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 prefer this memorandum of Crl.R.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Sompeta in S.C.No.46/2003, dated 22.12.05 which was modified by the Dist.

& Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Crl.A.No.114/2005, dated 25.03.08.

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1147 OF 2008 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 with the certified copy of the Order in S.C.No.46/2003 on the file of

the Asst. Sessions Judge, Sompeta, dated 22.12.05.

2

2026:APHC:41111 IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 3030 OF 2009

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

hearing expeditiously the above Cr.R.C.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

3

2026:APHC:41111 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 963/2008 The Court made the following:

The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the

order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court in

C.A.No.114 of 2005 arising out of S.C.No.46 of 2003.

2. In a nut shell, the fact of the case is that the petitioner was charged with the offences punishable under sections 354, 509 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity “the I.P.C). The learned Trial Court after taking evidences convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 354, 509 of I.P.C the same was challenged before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court by passing impugned order set aside the order of conviction against the petitioner under Section 354 of PC but imposed fine, only finding the petitioner to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section

509 of I.P.C. Hence, this instant Criminal Revision Case.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 509 of I.P.C is not justified. He further submits that when the punishment under Section 354 of I.P.C was set aside, the offence punishable under Section 509 should be set aside. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has committed error only passing order of conviction in respect of the offence under Section 509 I.P.C the

petitioner should have acquitted from this case.

4

2026:APHC:41111

4. Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objections and submits that there are sufficient material to hold that petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 509 of I.P.C. He further submits that it is clear from the evidences as well as Ex.P1 that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under section 509 of I.P.C. He further argued that the order of learned Appellate Court is speaking order, there is no

merits in the instant Criminal Revision Case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court as well as order

passed by the learned Appellate Court.

6. In this particular case, it has been alleged by the prosecution, the accused finding PW.2 (victim girl) in a