Partly allowed

Parimiseety Kalyana Surendra Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Sept 2010CRLRC/1645/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court held the presented appeal and subsequent conviction a fit case for interference. The Court remitted the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner due to a lenient view.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of simple imprisonment for one year reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

Parimiseety Kalyana Surendra Babu, Vs The State… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1645 of 2010

¶3

DATED: 20-09-2010

¶4

ORDER:-

¶5

On the basis of a report given by the de facto complainant, the Station House Officer, Koyyalagudem police station registered a case in Cr.No.30 of 2005 against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and thereafter altered the Section of law into 304-A IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovuru and numbered as C.C.No.345 of 2006.

¶6

2. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.10 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the defence. M.O.1 was marked.

¶7

3. Having analysed the said evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the petitioner herein and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.250/- for the offence punishable under Section 134(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for twenty days. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner herein filed Crl.A.No.52 of 2007 and the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Eluru dismissed the said appeal by judgment, dated 13-09-2010. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner herein.

¶8

4. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference. However, he submitted that though the petitioner was granted bail, he could not come out of the jail for not producing sufficient sureties immediately and thus he was in jail for a period of three days. Again, after dismissal of the appeal, on 13-092010, petitioner was taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence and as on date the petitioner is in jail.

¶10

6. As the alleged offence took place in 2005 and the petitioner had undergone a sentence of ten days, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the said sentence to that of the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the said sentence of simple imprisonment for one year is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner.

¶11

7. Excepting the said modification, in all other aspects, this revision stands dismissed.

¶12

________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J

¶13

20^th September 2010 TSY

Parimiseety Kalyana Surendra Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parimiseety Kalyana Surendra Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rawoof, Vs Syed Noor Ahmed , Noora

Helical Tubes and Ducts Pvt. Ltd., Admn.Office 1-8-303/34, Vs Sri Mukund Kakani

Vemuri Chowdeswari, Vs Kalidindi Subhadra Devi

N.Pawan Kumar, Vs Smt. Vijaya Deepti Rolla , Deepti Rolla

K.Venkatesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Neeraj Singh,A-3 Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh