SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15330

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
Ramayanam Venkata Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P. – Respondent
CRLRC 3286/2017



APHC010966602017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3286/2017 Between:

1. RAMAYANAM VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. MADHAVA RAYUDU, AGED 46 YEARS, RIO. GOLLAVANITIPPA VILLAGE, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF A P, THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY ITS PP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.

...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to submit this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.12.2017 made in Crl.A.No.228 of 2015 by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram in confirming and modifying the sentence and conviction passed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimavaram in C.C.No.17 of 2014 dated 23.06.2015 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 5316 OF 2017 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 filing of the certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2014 dated 23.06.2015 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 5317 OF 2017 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 suspend the sentence imposed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimavaram in C.C.No.17 of 2014 dated 23.06.2015, which was confirmed by the judgment dated 12.12.2017 made in Crl.A.No.228 of 2015 by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of Crl.R.C.No..of 2017 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3286 OF 2017

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel representing Sri Rambau Koppineedi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. The revision is preferred by the appellant/convict challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2017 in Crl.A.No.228 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Bhimavaram. The Crl.A.No.228 of 2015 was preferred against the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.17 of 2014 delivered on 23.06.2015. The Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC. The revision petitioner was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default imprisonment for three (03) months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The revision petitioner was further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only), in default, suffer imprisonment for one (01) month for the offence under Section 338 IPC.

3. The revision petitioner challenging the judgment of the learned Magistrate preferred the Crl.A.No.228 of 2015. The appellate court below confirmed the order of conviction recorded by the Magistrate, but modified the sentence of imprisonment of one (01) year to three (03) months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, also modified the sentence of imprisonment of six (06) months to two (02) months for the offence under Section 338 IPC, while confirming the quantum of fine imposed by the Magistrate for the both offence.

4. The revision petitioner challenged the judgment of the appellate court below on the ground that the Sessions Judge failed to see that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top