KATIKALA SURESH v. THE STATE OF A.P.
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: E.V. VENUGOPAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-02-19. KATIKALA SURESH v. THE STATE OF A.P. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD MONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2231 OF 2012 Revision filed under Section 397 and 4O1 of Cr. p. C. , against the judgment passed in Crl. A. No. 96 of ZO12dated 05. 11. 2O12. ,on the file of the Court of tne I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in confirming the judgment dated. 19. 07. 2012, passed in c. c. No. 62 of 2009, on the file oi tre court or ft,. Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. Between: Katikala Suresh, S/o Rala Mallaiah, Occ:Driver of Milk Van bearing No. AP. 10V 8062, Ryo Rajapeta Village and Mandal, Nalgonda Diitrict ... PETITIONER AND The. State. of A. P.. , Represented by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT l. A. NO: 2OF 2012( CRLRCMP. NO:3366 oF 20121 Petition under Section 482 of cr. p. c.
, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment dt. 5. 11. 2012, in crl. A. trto. go ot 2o12, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in confirming the Judgment dt. 19. 7. 2012, passed in c. c. No. 62 of 2009, on the file of the Additionat Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Hima Bindu, Advocate for SRl. E VENKATA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent : Assistant pUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) The Court made the following : ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 223 1 0F 2012 ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case is hled aggrieved by the judgment dated 05. ll. 2Ol2 in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2Ol2 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda (for short, 'the appellate Court") tn confirming the judgment dated 19. 07. 2012 in C. C. No.
62 of 2OO9 on the hle of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir (for short, "the trial Court") 2. Heard Ms. Hima Bindu, lea-rned counsel representing Mr. E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor apPearlng for respondent State. Perused the record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused was the driver of the milk van bearing No. AP-10-V-8O62. The deceased was the cleaner in the said van. During the early hours of 05. 12. 2OO8, the accused started from Hyderabad in the said van for supplying milk at Jangaon. \ilhile the van was reaching Bhongir, the accused drove the va-n in a rash and negligent rnanner and dashed the stationed lorry bearing No. AP 29 T 5840 -\=-person in the milk van driven by the accused died. PW7, in his evidence, also stated that one milk van dashed against their lorry which resulted in the death of one person. But, he did not identify the accused.
Therefore, from the evidence ol PW7, the rash and negligent driving of the van driver was established. Moreover, Ex t)9 i. e. , the wound certificate also revealed the rvounds received by the accused on the date o[ the alleged incident. The report of Motor Vehicle Inspector also revealed that the condition of the vehicle was proper. In vierv of the facts and circumstalces, the trial Court found that tl-re prosecution established the rash and negligent driving of the accused q,hich resulted in the accident and rendered thc judgment <:ited supra. 10. The appellate Court also found th:lt the evidertce of PWs. 6, 7 and 9, the panchanama and the rough skctch coupled u,ith the evidence of PW I 0 would establish the case of the prosecution that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the stationed lorry and caused the death o[ the deceased. Further, it was found that the accuserl drove the vehicle n ithout possessing any valid driving liccncr-'.
Thus, the learned Judge, found the accused guilty tor the offences under Section 304-4 of I. P. C. and Sections. 3 r/w 181 of the MV Act and rendered the judgment cited supra. 11. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated O7. ll. 2Ol2 suspended the sentence alone and enlarged the petitioner on bail on condition of his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. S,OOO/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Thereafter, thc matter underwent 1 several adjournments. I 12. [n the present case on hand, both the Courts held that the accused was guilty for the offences under Scction. 304A ol IPC and Section. 3 r/w 181 of the MV Act, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interlercnce, in the exercisc o[ revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr. P. C. 13.
There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered judgments of both the Courts and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismisseC. L4. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon considering the fact that the petitioner undcrwent mental agony by roaming around the trial Court as we[[ as the appellate Court, this Court dcems it appropriatc to reduce thc sentc:nce imposed against the pctitioncr lbr both the offcnces lrom six months to two months. The ltetitioner shall surrender before thc trial Court to serve out the remaining period of sentence 15. Except thc above modilication, in all othcr aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Misccllar-rcous Petitions, pcnding if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR. . Al-a, //TRUE COPY// sECnd$dFFrcER To, 1. The Court of I Additional Sessions Judge Court at Nalgonda. (with records, if any) 2.
The Cou( ot Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate,Bhongir, 3. Two CCs to tht-. Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [Ol.. ,T] 4. One CC to SRI E VENKATA REDDY Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies Pcsd/glt UK HIGH COURT DATED:1910212O24 ORDER { HF- S14I + F ic CRLRC. No. 2231 ot 2012 $ ( l J 1 ri ltAy Z0Zt . - -r'i \ |,n ictiL! ' DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION EXCEPT THE MODIFICATION @ drtk6$"\"
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.