JUDGEMENT

Heard Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner – Accused and Mr. Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C. No.62 of 2006. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections - 353 and 506 IPC. Vide judgment dated 20.12.2007, learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Luxettipet found the accused guilty of the aforesaid offences, and accordingly convicted him and imposed rigorous imprisonment for two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for the offence punishable under Section - 353 of IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three (03) months.

The accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) for the offence punishable under Section - 506 of IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (01) month.

3. Challenging the said conviction and sentences of imprisonment, the accused preferred an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2008 before learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Vide judgment dated 19.11.2008, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction recorded against him for the offence under Section - 353 of IPC. However, modified the sentence from imprisonment to fine directing him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for the offence under Section - 353 of IPC. During pendency of the said appeal, the accused and PW.1 - complainant entered into compromise and sought to compound the aforesaid offences. Since the offence under Section - 506 of IPC alone is compoundable, an application was filed vide Crl.M.P. No.560 of 2008 seeking permission to compound the said offence and accordingly, the same was allowed recording the compromise.

4. Now, challenging the conviction and modification of sentence from imprisonment to fine imposed by learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 19.11.2008 in Crl.A. No.1 of 2008, the accused filed the present Criminal Revision.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned in C.C. No.62 of 2006.

6. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner - accused is as under:

i) The accused is a resident of Thadihathnoor village and he was an Ex.MLA of Khanapur Constituency. PW.1 is the Forest Range Officer of Indanpally Village and thus he is a Government Servant. On 11.03.2006 at about 11:30 hours, while PW.1 was in his office attending his duty, the accused entered into the office, abused him in filthy language, lifted him by catching hold of his collar from his seat on the ground that he (PW.1) removed the huts erected in Munjuguda Forest Area and registered cases as land grabbers. The accused also threatened PW.1 that he would become MLA again after three (03) years and would see his send. In the meantime, the office staff (PWs.2 to 5) interfered and rescued PW.1. ii) On 12.03.2006 at 8.00 A.M. PW.1 gave Ex.P1 - report to PW.6 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Jannaram Police Station, who in turn, registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2006 under Sections - 353 and 506 of IPC and issued Ex.P5 - FIR. Then, PW.6 took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and examined PWs.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. On 27.03.2006, PW.6 apprehended the accused and produced before the Judicial Magistrate. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

7. Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused, would submit that there was delay in lodging the FIR by PW.1. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is contrary to each other, while PWs.3 to 5 did not support the prosecution case. Further, PW.2 is an interested witness. The DFO was not examined. Without considering all the said aspects, trial Court convicted the petitioner and the appellate Court con