Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kaviti Venu, E.G. Dist. 2 Othrs vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 19 September, 2025
1
APHC010813282014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2205/2014
Between:
1. KAVITI VENU, E.G. DIST. & 2 OTHRS, S/O. SRI VEERABHADRA
RAO, HINDU, AGE 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RIO. OPP:
SATYASRI ROAD, MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. KAVITI SATHIPANDU,
SATHIPANDU S/O. SRI VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGE 30
YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RIO. OPP: SATYASRI ROAD,
MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
3. BANDI VENKATA RAMANA,
RAMANA S/O. SRI SATYANARAYANA, HINDU,
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RIO. KRISHNA TALKIES LANE,
MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. STATEE OF A P REP BY P P HYD, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
cutor, High
Court at Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court cum IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, dated 05.11.2014 preferred against the th Calendar and judgment 2 made in STC No. 1 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru, dated 25.07.2014 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 3647 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC 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 made in Criminal Appeal No.250 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, dated: 0511-2014 preferred against the Calendar and Judgment made in S.T.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru, dated 25-07-2014 and enlarge them on bail, pending disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER:
1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') is filed on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 assailing the Judgment dated 05.11.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.250 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, '1st Appellate Court'), whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 4 of A.P.Gaming Act vide Judgment dated 25.07.2014 passed in S.T.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru (for short, 'the Trial Court').3
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in S.T.C.No.1 of 2011.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
Upon receiving credible information about gambling activity in Room No.202 at Vishnupriya Lodge, Mandapeta, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mandapeta Town P.S., obtained a search warrant from the SDPO, Ramachandrapuram (L.W.9). Accompanied by mediators L.W.1 (Lanka Samuel), L.W.2 (Pathan Jabbar), and police personnel L.Ws.3 to 7, he conducted a surprise raid at the location. A.1 to A.3 were found playing cards for stakes. On seeing the police, they attempted to flee but were apprehended at the scene. In the presence of mediators, the Sub-Inspector arrested the accused and recorded their confession and seized ₹10,000/- cash and three Nokia mobile phones (Models: 122, 305, and 5233), belonging to the accused. Based on the mediators' report, the case was registered as Cr.No.21/2010 under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act, 1974, on 14.08.2010 at 8:30 PM. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused.
4. The Trial Court took cognizance against the A.1 to A.3 under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act. On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. The A.1 to A.3 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation against them for the offence under section 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and MOs.1 to 3 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, the A.1 to A.3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing 4 in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same, and they stated that they had no defence witnesses on their behalf.
7. The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the A.1 to A.3 guilty for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act and they were convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each and also sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for four days vide its Judgment, dated 25.07.2014 in S.T.C.No.1 of 2011.
8. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.250 of 2014 before the 1st Appellate Court. However, the 1st Appellate Court, upon consideration, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Trial Court. Still dissatisfied, the appellants/A.1 to A.3 have filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.250 of 2014.
9. I have heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent / State and perused the record.
10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Criminal Revision Case is pressed only to the extent of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, and not against the conviction under Section 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act, 1974. He requested modification of the sentence, contending that the petitioners have no prior criminal antecedents.
11. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State has, while supporting the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed by 5 both Courts, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. As seen from the material on record, both Courts concurrently held that the credible evidence of PWs.2 and 3 establishes the seizure of the MO.1 -
cash amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, MO.2 - playing cards, and MO.3 - three cell phones, from the possession of A.1 to A.3. The testimony of PW.1 indicates that he drafted the mediator report (Ex.P2), which bears his signature. The 1 st Appellate Court correctly noted that the investigating officer is not required to explain the source of the cash once the evidence establishes its seizure from the possession of A.1 to A.3. Additionally, no motive has been attributed to any witness to falsely depose against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3, and the police officers had no reason to keep personal cash of Rs.10,000/- in order to implicate the accused persons. Furthermore, Ex.P4, the search warrant, demonstrates that upon receiving credible information, PW.3 obtained the search warrant and conducted a raid on the room at Vishnu Priya Lodge.
13. It is settled law as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that "in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court".
14. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court is to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court. This Court is not ordinarily required to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence which is already appreciated by the trial Court and the appellate Court unless it is found that there is clear non- appreciation of the evidence already on record or appreciation of inadmissible evidence, or that finding has been recorded without any evidence on record. If there is evidence on record on the point of decision formulated by the Courts 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 6 below for arriving at a conclusion of guilt, this Court is not required to enter into the records again to substitute its view in place of the view taken by the trial Court and the appellate Court.
15. Upon considering the judgments of both the Trial Court and the 1 st Appellate Court, this Court finds that both courts concurrently and with cogent reasoning held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of A.1 to A.3 under Section 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act, 1974 beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly convicted them. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the both the Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence and assessed the material placed before it in a proper and correct perspective.
16. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel on both sides, I see no illegality, error, or perversity in the findings of the both Courts regarding the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act, 1974.
17. Now, the point that arises for determination in this revision is:
Does the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, warrant interference?
P O I N T:
18. As evident from the record, the Trial Court convicted A.1 to A.3 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act, and also imposed a fine of ₹500/- on each of them, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of 4 days. The 1st Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
719. It is a well-established principle of sentencing policy that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven offence. The sentence should be neither nominal nor excessive. What constitutes a proportionate sentence must be determined on a case-by-case basis, having due regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each matter.
20. While ordering the sentence, the facts and circumstances of each of the case before the court has to be appreciated on its own merits and the circumstances in one criminal case cannot be taken as a binding precedent in so far as the order on sentence in another case, unless the facts and circumstances of each of the instances corresponds to each other or exactly tallies. But always, the court must bear in mind the cardinal principle that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, and it should not be excessive or exorbitant.
21. In Hazara Singh V. Raj Kumar2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"10. ... it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict."
"11. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases."
22. As evident from the record, the offence in question occurred on 14.08.2010, nearly 15 years ago. At the time of the offence, the petitioners were approximately 26, 30, and 31 years of age, respectively. Upon a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 are 2 (2013) 9 SCC 516 8 the first-time offenders with no prior criminal record or antecedents. There is no report of any misuse of the concession of bail or suspension of sentence by any of the petitioners.
23. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the A.1 to A.3, their age, economic conditions, and the significant passage of time since the incident, this court is inclined to assess the implications of imprisonment at this juncture. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could severely disrupt the petitioners' personal life and adversely impact the welfare of their family, who may be dependent on them. Accordingly, this court finds that the sentence imposed under Section 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act, is disproportionately severe and may be deemed excessive. In light of these factors, this court views that this case presents exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention, particularly concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Given the absence of any prior criminal record, this court concludes that the sentence imposed on the accused under Section 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act should be reconsidered as excessive. Therefore, this Court deems it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgments only to the extent of setting aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by both Courts, while upholding the imposition of a fine of ₹500/- each on A.1 to A.3, as ordered by the Trial Court and affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court, which adequately serves the interests of justice. The point is accordingly answered.
24. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 under Section 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act, as affirmed by the judgments of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru (dated 24.07.2014 in S.T.C.No.1 of 2011) and the learned Judge, Family Court - cum - IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (dated 05.11.2014 in Crl.A.No.250 of 2014), is upheld. However, the sentence is modified as follows: (i) the sentence of Simple Imprisonment (SI) for a period of 15 days each is set 9 aside, and (ii) the fine imposed by the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the bail bonds of the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 are hereby discharged. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit a copy of this order, along with the case records, to both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court for necessary compliance.
Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 19.09.2025 SAK 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2205 of 2014 Date: 19.09.2025 SAK