THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.545 of 2007 Date:26.06.2014 Between:
Nirsenmetla Chennaiah . Petitioner.
AND The States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, rep by its’ Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the states of Telangana and A.P.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.545 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 09-03-2007 in Crl.A.No.3/2007 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda whereunder judgment dated 01-12-2006 in C.C.No.85/2003 on the file Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddavoora filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 26-12-2002, at about 8:45 P.M., the accused being driver of tipper bearing No.ABK 2431, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed auto of B. Kondal Rao, as a result, one Dasoju Sujatha died and Konda Rao, Ravindra Prasad, Naveen & Praveeen received bleeding injuries and that the accused is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of M.V. Act. On pleading guilty for the offences when the accused is examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, Rs.500/- fine for the offence under Section 337 IPC and Rs.200/- fine for the offence under Section 134 read with Section 187 of M.V Act. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session and V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The main contention of Advocate for revision petitioner is that the trial Court has not given any opportunity to the revision petitioner to engage an advocate and that he admitted the offence due to confusion and that there is no sufficient material to convict the revision petitioner.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- As seen from the record, the trial, Court after satisfying that the plea of accused is voluntary and considering the material on record, found him guilty. Though there is no appeal provided against conviction on admission, the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner was entertained and ultimately dismissed. Now the request of the advocate for the revision petitioner is that since the offence is of the year 2002 and the accused was found negligent by driving the vehicle with one head lamp, which ultimately caused the accident and as he was in jail for 45 days, the said period may be treated as punishment.
He submitted since last 11 years, accused suffered mental agony on account of this criminal case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal cases including accident cases and that he is a law abiding citizen. Considering the facts of the case, nature of offence and the submissions of advocate for revision petitioner, I feel that period already undergone i.e., 45 days can be treated as punishment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.
7. For these reasons, revision is dismissed modifying the sentence of six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC to the period already undergone besides the fine amount already paid.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:26.06.2014 mrb