Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
U Mohammad Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 July, 2025
APHC010325112025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 705/2025
Between:
U. Mohammad Rafi ...PETITIONER
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
P.V.N Kiran Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent:
Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and
442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the
BNSS’)/Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
brevity ‘the Cr.P.C‘), challenging the judgement dated 03.06.2023 in
Crl.A.No.14 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby and whereunder the
conviction and sentence for the charge under Sections 323 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C‘) passed by the learned Judicial
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
Magistrate of I Class, Jammalamadugu in C.C.No.82 of 2016 dated
09.01.2023 sentencing the petitioner to suffer three months simple
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for
the charge under Section 323 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand Only) and sentence of imprisonment of three months
for the charge under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ was confirmed.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and
the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3 Sri P.V.N. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while
reiterating the grounds of the revision, submits that even though there were
discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the learned Trial
Court and learned Appellate Court failed to see them and convicted the
petitioner; there was a delay of registration of F.I.R also falsely foisted the
name of the petitioner and urged to allow the criminal revision case.
4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner is aged about 61 years.
The de-facto complainant is relative of the petitioner he went to the P.W.1 to
settle the 498-A issue. The petitioner may be imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as a measure of penance excluding the
payment of fine paid by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court at the time
of the preferring the appeal. The petitioner has not committed any offence
similar in nature earlier and the petitioner is working as a Headmaster in
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
Elementary Aided School, Allagadda and urged to dispose of the criminal
revision case.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, vehemently argued that the evidence of the witnesses of the
prosecution was thoroughly examined by the learned Trial Court and learned
Appellate Court as the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the
petitioner which was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, there is no
misreading of evidence; there is no flagrant miscarriage of justice; there are no
material irregularities and urged to dismiss the criminal revision case as it is
not feasible to re-appreciate the evidence in the revisional stage, while
admitting that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioner.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.14 of 2023 dated 03.06.2025
passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kadapa at Proddatur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to
its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material
irregularities? And to what relief?”
8. While deciding a criminal revision case filed against acquittal of
accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar1wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as
under:
“13. … In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the
procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification
for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should
not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the
trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave
miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such
cases is not warranted.”
9. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale2, at Paragraph No.2 it is
held as under:
“…Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with
the concurrent findings of the courts below specially by re-
appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction….”
10. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh3, at Paragraph Nos.10
to 13 it is held as under:
“10. While it is true and now well-settled in a long catena of
cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be
ascribed to be discretionary – this discretion, however, as is
popularly informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and
not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion
which stands “informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and
disciplined by system” – resultantly only in the event of a glaring
defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on
a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not to be called for.
It is not to be lightly exercised but only in exceptional situations
where the justice delivery system requires interference for
correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross
miscarriage of justice. In Nosibolla: Logendranath Jha and
Chinnaswamy Reddy (supra) as also in Thakur Das (Thakur Das
(Dead) by LRs v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., 1978 (1)
SCC 27) this Court with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms
recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of1
(2002) 6 SCC 650
2
AIR 1993 SC 1126
3
AIR 2002 SC 2229
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for
being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view
being otherwise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in
the event of there being a failure of justice there can said to be no
limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power.
11. The High Court possesses a general power of
superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it. On its
administrative side, the power is known as the power of
superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of
revision. The High Court can at any stage even on its own motion,
if it so desires, and certainly when illegalities or irregularities
resulting in injustice are brought to its notice call for the records
and examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part
of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and
revisions and interlocutory applications -so also its right to
exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though
however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court,
however, under the provisions of Section 401 is very much
circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore.
12. Having regard to the aforesaid, we do feel it expedient to
record that in the contextual facts presently under consideration
before this Court, the High Court cannot but be said to have
exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order of
acquittal.
13. In any event, writing of a fresh judgment as directed by
the Court is rather a significant departure in the normal disposal of
revisional applications. Opportunities have been given for further
argument but would that by itself tilt the scale – this aspect of the
matter has already been noticed earlier, as such we need not
dilate thereon excepting recording that an extremely significant
departure from the normal form of Court orders stands challenged
in this Court.”
11. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred
supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any
iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a second appellate court. This
Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401
of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke it’s revisional power as a Second Appellate
Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as
laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, Jagannath
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
Chowdhary and Appa Babu Ingale. However, this Court is not denuded of its
powers to examine whether judgments impugned are correct, legal and proper
with respect to their findings, sentence or even judgment and there are any
material irregularities. If there are manifest illegalities and interest of public
justice requires interference for the correction of those manifest illegalities or
to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate
the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion.
12. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 6, marked Exs.P1 to 5 and
M.O.Nos.1 to 3. There was no evidence marked for the defence and no
witness was examined by the petitioner. The learned Appellate Court after
analyzing the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution found that the
petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506
of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentenced him as mentioned above.
13. The learned Appellate Court having examined the evidence of the
prosecution and analyzed the grounds raised in the appeal found that there
was no substance in the appeal and dismissed the appeal confirming the
judgment of the learned Trial Court. Whether in the statement of the witnesses
there was any discrepancies are not cannot be looked into at this juncture, as
this Court cannot afford the re-appreciate of the witnesses of the prosecution
under Sections 397 read with 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/ Sections 438 and 442 of
‘the BNSS’.
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
14. For the above reasons, the conviction for the charge under Section 323
and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be maintained.
15. However, the petitioner has not indulged in similar kind of offence on
earlier occasion. It is fairly conceded there are no adverse antecedents
against the petitioner. The petitioner is aged about 61 years working as
Headmaster in Elementary Aided School. The petitioner is about to retire from
the service in few a months. The petitioner and the P.W.1 are relatives. In
view of the above, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one (01) month
and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- on the petitioner is disproportionate to the
gravity of the charges. Since there are no adverse antecedents against the
petitioner and he is working in Elementary Aided School, a further fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) is imposed for the charge under
Section 323 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and furthermore Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Only) is imposed additionally for the charge under Section 506 of
‘the I.P.C.,’ it would have met ends of justice additionally.
16. For the above reasons, the criminal revision case is disposed of
confirming the conviction for the offence under Sections 323 and 506 of ‘the
I.P.C.,’ while modifying the sentence of simple imprisonment of one (01)
month into sentence of payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- additionally; the
sentence of three (03) months imprisonment under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’
is modified into Rs.5,000/- payment of fine additionally. This additional amount
of fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed in this order is in addition to the fine already
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
paid by the petitioner. The additional amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by
the petitioner within one (01) month from the date of receipt of this order,
failing which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three (03) months. The
fine amount additionally be paid by the petitioner i.e., Rs.10,000/- shall be paid
to the de-facto complainant or his legal representative, if de-facto complainant
alive.
17. The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jammalamadugu, is directed
to take necessary required steps.
18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 21.07.2025
KMS
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
118
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 705 of 2025
21.07.2025
W
10
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025
Dated 21.07.2025
KMS
