Partly allowed

Dirisala Muneswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC5 Nov 2012CRLRC/1335/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the court did not adjudicate the prosecution merits but, due to the appellant's bedridden condition and prolonged stigma, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

Dirisala Muneswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1335 OF 2011

¶2

DATED 5^th NOVEMBER, 2012.

¶3

BETWEEN :

¶4

D.Muneswara Rao ..Petitioner-Appellant-Accused

¶5

and State of A.P. ..Respondent-Complainant

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1335 OF 2011

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitionerappellant against the judgment, dated 23.06.2011, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.116 of 2010 by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.T.C.No.5 of 2008 by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, on 20.04.2010 in which the petitioner was convicted under section 255 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 7 (i) & 2 (ia) (j) punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioner by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments only to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioner.

¶11

In view of the said submission, this Court is of the view that merits of the Prosecution case and impugned judgment need not be adjudicated.

¶12

Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2008 and for all these years the petitioner suffered humiliation and also stigma in the society. It is represented that the petitioner is bed ridden, suffering with some ailments and not in a position to move from one place to another place. Considering these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the petitioner in imposition of sentence even though minimum punishment is envisaged under the Act.

¶13

Hence, the conviction imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court is hereby confirmed. However, considering the circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is hereby reduced to that of the period already undergone by him in prison.

¶14

The remaining portion of the impugned judgment shall stand unchanged.

¶15

With above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶16

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date : 05.11.2012 sur

Dirisala Muneswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dirisala Muneswara Rao, 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

Marati Ramulu Vs The State of Ap.

Sri a.K.H.S.Rama Raju Vs State

Mohammad Abdul Samad , Munna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mattam Veera Bhadraiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mahabub Basha, Vs Smt. Raziya Begum

Smt. Tirumalasetty Rajyalakshmi Vs Kalyan Kumar Nese