Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Barla Venkata Raman Murthy, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd. on 16 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1227 OF 2010
Between:-
Barla Venkata Raman Murthy, S/o Linga Raju, Timmarajupeta, East
Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,.
...Respondent
****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 16.06.2025
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010
Dated16.06.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010
Dated16.06.2025
* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1227 OF 2010
% 16.06.2025
# Between:
Barla Venkata Raman Murthy, S/o Linga Raju, Timmarajupeta, East
Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,.
...Respondent
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P.S.Krishna Prasad
^Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. P.Akhila Naidu,
Assistant Public Prosecutor
< Gist:
> Head Note:
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010
Dated16.06.2025
? Cases referred:
1) (2002) 6 SCC 650
2) 1958 SCC OnLine SC 3
3) (1963) 2 Cr.LJ 668
4) 1970 Cri.LJ 1203
5) AIR 1963 Allahabad
6) 1995 Cr.LJ 3057 Delhi
7) AIR 1914 Cal. 69
8) AIR 1954 HP 32
9) AIR 1940 Lah 233
10) (1963) 2 Cr.LJ 668
11) 1968 RLW 568
12) 1945 A.C 264
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010
Dated16.06.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1227 of 2010
ORDER:
The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C') challenging the judgment dated 07.06.2010 in Crl.A.No.46 of 2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, confirming the judgment dated 12.02.2008 in S.T.C.No.1 of 2008 passed by the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tuni whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C') and convicted the petitioner under Section 241 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri P.S. Krishna Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Courts below based on assumptions, surmises and conjectures passed the impugned judgments; the learned Trial Court failed to follow the procedure properly while prosecuting the accused under Section 345 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' read with Section 228 of 'the I.P.C'; the learned Trial Court in its judgment nowhere stated or mentioned about the nature and stage of the judicial proceedings in which the 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025 court was interrupted or insulted; the Appellate Court ought to have set aside the order of the learned Trial Court, but, unfortunately, confirmed the judgment mechanically without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 345 of 'the Cr.P.C'; the petitioner-accused had not been given an opportunity of being heard as provided in the Section 345 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and the punishment was only fine and not sentence; the contents of the statements alleged to be recorded before the learned Court are not tallying with each other and are fully contradictory and conflicting to the judgment of the learned lower Court; the learned Appellate Court without appreciating the contentions and decisions relied upon by the accused upheld the judgement of the learned Trial Court and without any reasonable grounds confirmed the sentence of the learned Trial Court observing that the appellant pleaded the guilty and sworn statements of the advocates, advocate clerks and the litigant public were recorded. Eventually, it is argued that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is illegal, perverse, and unjust, suffers from flagrant violation of procedure and miscarriage of justice and suffers from material irregularities and urged to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned judgments and acquit the petitioner.
4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction passed against the petitioner and urged to dismiss the revision case 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025 as there are no material irregularities, flagrant miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence.
5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.46 of 2008 dated 07.06.2010 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?"
7. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1 wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under:
"12. ... It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice.The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party.
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 the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.1
(2002) 6 SCC 650 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025 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."
8. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh.
9. The learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 228 of 'the I.P.C.,' without following the procedure under Section 345 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' by taking the affidavits of the advocates and litigant public, as complaint otherwise than by report of police officer by taking cognizance of the offence under Section 228 of 'the I.P.C'. Therefore, for better appreciation of the case, it is relevant to extract Sections 345 and 346 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and Section 228 of 'the I.P.C'.
10. Section 345 and 346 of the Cr.P.C.,' read as follows:
345. Procedure in certain cases of contempt.
(1) When any such offence as is described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180, or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may, at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, take cognizance of the offence and, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section, sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid.9
Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025 (2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence.
(3) If the offence is under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult.
346. Procedure where Court considers that case should not be dealt with under Section 345.
(1) If the Court in any case considers that a person accused of any of the offences referred to in Section 345 and committed in its view or presence should be imprisoned otherwise than in default of payment of fine, or that a fine exceeding two hundred rupees should be imposed upon him, or such Court is for any other reason of opinion that the case should not be disposed of under Section 345, such Court, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused as hereinbefore provided, may forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same, and may require security to be given for the appearance of such person before such Magistrate, or if sufficient security is not given shall forward such person in custody to such Magistrate. (2) The Magistrate to whom any case is forwarded under this section shall proceed to deal with, as far as may be, as if it were instituted on a police report.
11. Section 228 of 'the IPC.,' reads as under:
228. Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding.--
Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
12. It is opposite to mention certain judgments relating to the procedure to be adopted under sections 345 and 346 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and section 228 of 'the IPC.,' which are important for appreciating the instant case. 10
Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025
13. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Revashankar 2 at Para No.5, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 228 of 'the IPC.,' were mentioned as under:
1. The Victim of offence was a public servant;
2. Such public servant was sitting in his judicial capacity;
3. Accused insulted or interrupted the proceedings of court;
4. He did so intentionally.
14. In State v. Bhabesh Chandra Das3 it is held that a judicial officer is entitled to maintain the dignity of the Court, but he should not be too sensitive and too ready to take offence where none is intended.
15. In Janardan Prasad Mandal v. State of Bihar4 it is held at para No.5 that accused must be told particulars of offence and must be given opportunity to explain them. Disregard of them amounts to miscarriage of justice. A similar view was also expressed in Ramnath v. State5.
16 In Re B.K. Sharma6 it is held at para No.8 that intimidation or attempt to imtimidise a judicial officer is a serious matter calling conviction under Section 228 of 'the I.P.C.' 2 1958 SCC OnLine SC 3 3 (1963) 2 Cr.LJ 668 4 1970 Cri.LJ 1203 5 AIR 1963 Allahabad 6 1995 Cr.LJ 3057 Delhi 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025
17. In Legal Remembrance v. Motilal Chore7 it is held that section 345 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' deals with procedure in certain cases of contempt.
18. It is highly relevant to refer the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Chet Ram v. State8 wherein at para No.4 it is held as under:
'In the case of a contempt committed coram judice and punishable under Section 228, 'the IPC.,' there are two courses open to the court: (i) It may itself take congnisance of the offence before the rising of the court on the same day and sentence the offender under this section in which case only a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees can be imposed, or, if it considers that the offender be imprisoned otherwise than in default of payment of fine, or that a fine exceeding Rs.200/- should be imposed upon him, it may forward the case to a magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same under Section 346, or (ii) It may proceed under Section 340 and make a complaint to a magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. If the court in respect of which the offence has been committed does not itself take congnisance of the offence under the first alternative, cognizance of the offence by a magistrate who proceeds to try the offender, is barred by Section 195, except on the complaint in writing of the said court under Section 340 or of some other court to which it is subordinate under Section
341. The Court has an option to proceed either under Section 345 or under Section 340. The existence of Section 346 does not operate to take away the option.'
19. Yet another decision in Emperor v. Ramlal Anand9 it is held that if the judge intends to make a complaint under Section 340 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' he may hold a preliminary inquiry, but if he has no intention of proceedings under Section 345 or Section 340 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and records evidence, the record that he has made of the evidence cannot be the foundation for an order against the accused in relation to the alleged contempt of court but only, if at all, for the purposes under the Legal Practitioner Act. 7 AIR 1914 Cal. 69 8 AIR 1954 HP 32 9 AIR 1940 Lah 233 12 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025
20. In State v. Bhabhesh Chandra Das10 it is held that where the court proceeds under Section 228 of 'the I.P.C.,' the procedure should be strictly followed. The judge or magistrate must state to the accused the particulars of the offence of which he is accused, and give him an opportunity of explaining and correcting any misapprehension as to what had, in fact, been said or meant by him.
21. In State v. Nand Kishor11 at para No.6 it is held that section 345 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' gives summary power which a court must of necessity possess. Its usefulness depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised, and to use it to suppress methods of advocacy which are merely offensive is to use it for a purpose for which it is not intended while quoting the observations of Lord Goddard in Parashuram Detaram Shamdesani v. King Emperor12.
22. Keeping in view of the above law laid down by several High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court, the case on hand has to be appreciated and discerned.
23. Section 345 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' postulates the procedure in certain cases of contempt which includes an offence under Section 228 of 'the I.P.C'. As the learned Magistrate was not inclined to punish the petitioner, by giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be 10 (1963) 2 Cr.LJ 668 11 1968 RLW 568 12 1945 A.C 264 13 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025 punished under Section 345 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' sentencing the petitioner to fine not exceeding to Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid, the learned Magistrate ought to have adopted the procedure contemplated under Section 346 of 'the Cr.P.C'. It is axiomatic that when the learned Magistrate intends to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 228 of 'the I.P.C.,' the procedure contemplated either under Section 345 or Section 346 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' shall be followed.
24. In the instant case, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The learned Magistrate has no discretion in not adopting the procedure contemplated under Sections 345 and 346 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' inasmuch as Section 228 of 'the I.P.C.,' is substantive in nature and does not prescribe any other procedure as to how the petitioner had to be dealt with, when cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 228 of 'the I.P.C.,' Indeed, the procedure mentioned under Sections 345 and 346 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' are mandatory. No discretion is left with the learned Magistrate to follow any different procedure in respect of an offence punishable under section 228 of 'the I.P.C.,' Ironically, this fundamental principle was ignored by the learned Appellate also while examining the impugned judgment of the learned trial court.
25. Further, at what stage of the judicial proceedings, the petitioner had allegedly offered any intentional insult or caused any interruption to the judicial 14 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025 proceedings. The record is abysmally silent on this aspect. There is no reference either in the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court or in the learned Appellate Court that the alleged offence was committed in view or in the presence of the learned Magistrate. Section 228 of 'the I.P.C.,' would attract only when the alleged offence had been committed either in view or in the presence of the learned Magistrate. Without there being a clear finding to that effect, the finding that the petitioner was guilty under Section 228 of 'the I.P.C.,' is improper and unsustainable.
26. Ex-facie it has to be pointed out that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner, when he was sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 228 of 'the I.P.C.,' by hearing about the quantum of the sentence. Therefore, failure to hear about quantum of sentence and fine against the petitioner and imposing the maximum sentence of imprisonment and fine is vitiated by principle of natural justice inasmuch as there were no previous similar adverse antecedents against the petitioner. Thus there was flagrant miscarriage of justice for non-compliance of principles of natural justice. The learned Magistrate has committed material irregularity of the procedure. There is no reference about the petitioner tendering apology to the learned Magistrate, when he pleaded guilty.
27. In case, the learned Magistrate had not intended to dispose of the case as mentioned under Section 345 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' as the learned Magistrate 15 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025 wanted to impose sentence of imprisonment and fine, the learned Magistrate ought to have adopted the procedure under Section 346 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' by recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the petitioner and forwarded the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence by requiring security be given for appearance of the petitioner before such Magistrate. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is against the mandate under Sections 345 and 346 of 'the Cr.P.C'. On this count also the judgment of the learned Trial Court is vitiated.
28. Non-mentioning of the nature and the stage of the judicial proceedings in which the learned Magistrate was conducting, when the petitioner allegedly interrupted or insulted goes to the root of the matter and as such the judgment is unsustainable. The learned Appellate Court also mechanically disposed of the appeal without considering the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In cases under Section 228 of 'the I.P.C.,' the Court is both Prosecutor and Judge. Hence, the power should be used only in exceptional cases. So, the courts taking action under Section 228 of 'the IPC'., ought not to give room for the impression that they are unduly sensitive. For the above mentioned reasons, the judgment of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court suffer from illegality, perversity and unjustness.
29. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned appellate court dated 07.06.2010 in Crl.A.No.46 of 2008 on the file of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East 16 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1227 of 2010 Dated16.06.2025 Godavari, Kakinada. Consequently, the judgment of the learned Trial Court in STC.No.1 of 2008 dated 12.02.2008 on the file of the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tuni, is also set aside.
30. The fine amount as has already been realized from the petitioner shall be refunded to him.
31. 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: 16.06.2025 Note: LR Copy to be marked.
B/o KMS