Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/327/2015 of SRI G.PRASANTHA LAKSHMI, SRIKAKULAM DT., Vs STATE OF AP., REP PP AND 2 OTRS., on 30 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 327/2015 Between: 1. SRI G.PRASANTHA LAKSHMI, SRIKAKULAM DT.,, D/O.
APHC010711222015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 327/2015
Between:
1. SRI G.PRASANTHA LAKSHMI, SRIKAKULAM DT.,, D/O.
G.N.RAMACHANDRA MURTHY, PARTNER AND PHARMCIST, M/S. NEW VENKATA SAI DURGA MEDICAL & GENERAL
STORES,
A.NO.479-1,
RAMA
KALARNANDIR
STREET,
PALAKONDA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF AP REP PP AND 2 OTRS, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD.
2. M/S NEW VENKAT SAI DURGA MEDICAL AND GENERAL
STORES,
-1,
A.
NO.479,
RAMAKALAMANDIR
STREET,
PALAKONDA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY MR KOTTISA
RAJASEKHAR, PARTNER.
3. MR KOTTISA RAJASEKHAR, S/O. KONDALA RAO, PARTNER, M/S. NEW VENKATA SAI DURGA MEDICAL AND GENERAL
STORES,
A.NO.479,
RAMAKALAMANDIR
STREET,
PALAKONDA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. (RR2 TO 3 ARE NOT
NECESSARY PARTIES)
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto present this memorandum of Crl.Rc., to this Hon'ble Corut aggrieved by the
sentence and order as made in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2012 dated 02-02-2015 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakualm, confirming the order and sentence as made in CC.no. 336
of 2009 on the file of the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Palakonda,Srikakulam District, dated 14-08-2012.
IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 508 OF 2015
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 sentence impugned in Crl.A. No. 76 of 2012
order dated 2.2.2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Srikakulam pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MANOJ KHADKIKAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 327 OF 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. Inspite of the matter is being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, none appears on behalf of the Petitioner.
2. The instant criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed against the judgment dated 02.02.2015, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, in Crl.A.No.76 of 2012, whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment dt.14.08.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, at Palakonda, in C.C. No.336 of 2009, and A.1 is punished by imposing fine of Rs.5,000/-, convicted and sentenced A.2 and A.3 (petitioner herein) to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and A.2 and A.3 were imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default of the fine, A.2 and A.3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. A.1 to A.3 were imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under section 22(1)(cca) punishable under section 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, in default of fine A.2 and A.3 shall undergo simple imprisonment one month each. A.1 to A.3 were imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under section 18(a)
punishable under section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in default of the fine, A.2 and A.3 shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month each.
3. I have perused the order passed by the learned trial court.
4. On careful observation of the findings, it appears that learned trial court has convicted and sentenced A.2 and A.3 (petitioner) to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and A.2 and A.3 were imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default of the fine, A.2 and A.3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. A.1 to A.3 were imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under section 22(1)(cca) punishable under section 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, in default of fine A.2 and A.3 shall undergo simple imprisonment one month each. A.1 to A.3 were imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under section 18(a) punishable under section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in default of the fine, A.2 and A.3 shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month each by fixing several points for determination. The order of conviction and sentence has also mentioned the evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses in detail; the documents placed by the parties has also been scanned.
5. On a careful perusal of the observation of the learned trial court, it appears that the trial court has specifically decided each and every objections and argument raised by defence; the learned trial court has also decided the case by fixing points for determination. I find no illegality and impropriety in the order itself.
6. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
7. Under the above observation, the instant criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merit.
8. The order suspending the sentence during the pendency of the criminal revision case stands vacated. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial court within six weeks from the date of passing of this order to serve the remaining portion of the sentence. Failing which, the trial court shall take necessary steps to secure his presence and ensure compliance. Since the petitioner is not present before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon the learned trial court for ready reference.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Date:31.03.2026 BV