ORDER:

Heard Mr. L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.

K.R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused and Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2008 in Crl.A. No.20 of 2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short ‘appellate Court’) dismissing the appeal by modifying the conviction of the accused into one under Section 323 of IPC and confirming the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath (for short ‘trial Court’) in C.C. No.140 of

1999.

3. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C. No.140 of 1999.

The offence alleged against him is punishable under Section - 332 of IPC.

The allegations levelled against him are as follows:

i) PW.9, the then MRO received a telephone call from Parliament Secretariat in between 3.30 and 4.00 p.m. to pass the information on to the accused, who is the then Member of Parliament. Then, he passed on the said information to the police station, Boath.

ii) PW.1, the complainant having received the said information from PW.9, went to the Inspection Bungalow, where the accused was staying, to inform the same to the accused. Accordingly, PW.1 informed the said message and in the meanwhile, the accused called him back and asked him about two cases i.e., Crime No.7 of 1999 and 8 of 1999. He told PW.1 not to harass and arrest the accused persons therein, on which PW.1 informed that it is not in his purview and it is within the purview of the Circle Inspector of Police. Then, the accused scolded PW.1 saying that he was talking in a drunken state and thereafter gave a fist blow on the mouth of PW.1 due to which, PW.1 received bleeding injury on his lower lip. The accused also caught hold of his shirt collar.

iii) Thus, the petitioner - accused committed the offence punishable under Section - 332 of IPC.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses including PW.1 and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. The same was taken on file as C.C.

No.140 of 1999.

5. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1 was also marked. On behalf of the accused, he himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D4.

6. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide judgment dated 06.02.2006, learned trial Court recorded conviction against the accused for the offence under Section - 332 of IPC and accordingly imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (01) month.

7. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the accused preferred an appeal vide Crl.A. No.20 of 2006. The learned appellate Court, vide judgment dated 21.10.2008, dismissed the said appeal modifying the conviction of the accused into one under Section -

323 of IPC, however, confirmed the sentence of imprisonment.

8. Challenging the same, the accused filed the present revision on the following grounds:

i) There is no previous sanction to prosecute the case against the accused as he was a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha). A trial without sanction is without jurisdiction. The appellate Court totally ignored the law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the sanction and dealt with the said issue casually.

ii) There is no iota of evidence except the evidence of PWs.2 to 7 - interested witnesses, to prove the case against the petitioner herein; iii) The prosecution foisted a case against the petitioner herein with an intention to harass him;

iv) PW.1 cannot be treated as a public servant as he was not in uniform on the date of alleged incident and, therefore, offence under Section - 332 of IPC would not attract.

v) The petitioner - accused is entitled for acquittal on the ground of