Dismissed¶¶36

Dasari Subhashini, Vijayawada & Anr. v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd

Andhra Pradesh HC4 May 2026CRLRC/1593/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision dismissed - conviction under Section 506 IPC (RI 3 months each) on accused nos.3 & 4 confirmed; no interference with concurrent orders of JMFC Special Mobile Court Guntur (C.C.No.117/2008, 03.06.2013) and II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur (Crl.A.No.238/2013, 28.07.2014); revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC; related convictions under Sections 120-B, 419, 471, 468 IPC; AP High Court at Amaravati, 05.05.2026, Subhendu Samanta, J.; counsel unable to contact petitioners (insufficient address); miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

The learned Appellate Court rightly decided the matter and partly allowed the order of the learned trial Court, and this Court finds no illegality and impropriety in the order itself. ¶¶34

Dasari Subhashini, Vijayawada & Anr. Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the judgment dated 28.07.2014 in Crl.A.No.238/2013 of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 506 IPC, and consequently acquit them.

¶¶15

Court's answer

The learned Appellate Court rightly decided the matter and partly allowed the order of the learned trial Court, and this Court finds no illegality and impropriety in the order itself.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no justification to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The trial court's order of conviction and sentence mentioned the evidentiary value of the witnesses in detail and the documents placed by the parties were scanned.obiter¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Case No.1593/2014 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Justice Subhendu Samanta) - DISMISSED as devoid of merit. Petitioners/accused nos.3 & 4 (Dasari Subhashini and Kavuri Sobhan) sought setting aside of the judgment dated 28.07.2014 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.238/2013, which confirmed their conviction and sentence under Section 506 IPC (rigorous imprisonment for three months each) originally imposed by judgment dated 03.06.2013 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur in C.C.No.117/2008; the trial court had also convicted them for offences under Sections 120-B, 419 read with 120-B, and 471 read with 120-B of IPC, with a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 468 read with 120-B and 471 read with 120-B IPC under each count. On review, the trial court was found to have decided the grounds and points for determination, the Appellate Court was found to have rightly decided the matter and partly allowed the trial court's order, and no illegality, impropriety or justification to interfere was found. Copy ordered to be served on the trial court; miscellaneous applications stand closed. Petitioner-side counsel (Mr. S. Mahesh for Ms. V. Sesha Kumari) reported being unable to contact the clients as the registered memo returned for insufficient address.

¶1

[3560]

¶2

PHC010747742014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1593/2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

DASARI SUBHASHINI, VIJAYAWADA & ANR, W/O RANGASAI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O AVS ROAD, PAIKAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA.

¶10

KAVURI SOBHAN, S/O PURNACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O VIJAYAWADA.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYD, through S.I. of Police Guntur Rural Police Station, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

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 Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the judgment dt.28-7-2014 passed in CrI.A.No. 238/2013 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur in C.C.No.117 of 2008 dt.3-6-2013 in so far as offence U/Sec. 506 of I.P.C. is concerned and consequently acquit the petitioners herein; ii) and to grant

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2564 OF 2014

¶17

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

¶18

dispense with filing of the certified copy of the Judgment passed in C.C.No. 117/2008 dt.30-6-2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, and to pass

¶19

IA NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2612 OF 2014

¶20

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 petitioners herein on bail by suspending the conviction and sentence imposed in CC.No.117/2008 dated 30.06.2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, as confirmed in Crl.A.No.238/2013 dated 28.07.2014 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in so far as the offence U/Sec. 506 of IPC., pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶22

1.V SESHA KUMARI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶24

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶27

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1593 OF 2014

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The instant criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.3 & 4 against the judgment dated 28.07.2014, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.238 of 2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the judgment dated 03.06.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special mobile Court, Guntur, in C.C.No.117 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 120-B, 419 read with 120-B, 471 read with 120-B of IPC under each count and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 468 read with 120-B and 471 read with 120-B IPC under each count and the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months each for the offence under Section 506 IPC.

¶30

Mr. S. Mahesh, learned counsel representing Smt. V. Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners frankly submits that though he tried to contact his clients. But the registered memo returned as insufficient address. Accordingly, he placed reliance upon this Court for necessary orders.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

I have perused the order passed by the learned trial Court.

¶33

On careful observation of the findings, it appears that the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months each for the offence under Section 506 IPC by fixing several points for determination. The order of conviction and sentence has also mentioned the evidentiary value of the witnesses in detail and the documents placed by the parties has also been scanned.

¶34

On careful perusal of the observation of the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, it appears that the trial Court has specifically decided the grounds of petition as mentioned by the petitioners, they have also decided on the point for determination. The learned Appellate Court has also rightly decided the matter and partly allowed the order of the learned trial Court. I find no illegality and impropriety in the order itself.

¶35

Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court.

¶36

Under the above observation, the instant criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merit. Let a copy of this order be served upon the learned trial court for ready reference. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J

¶38

Date: 05.05.2026 CVD

Dasari Subhashini, Vijayawada & Anr. v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Subhashini, Vijayawada & Anr. v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Noormohammad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Raghunath Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chintala Rajasekhar, Guntur Dt. Vs State of a.P.,Rep. by P.P., Hyd

T. Suseela, Vs The State of A.P.

Jangam Reddy Veera Mohan Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Syed Mohammed Ghouse Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh