Appeals and Revisions 277 Model Form No. 64 ———_?: 84 MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL REVisfon PETITION (UNDER SECTIONS 397 AND 401 OF Cy ¢) 1X THE HIGH COURT OF JupIcATy Ne RE OF PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD ANDHRA CRL.R.C. NO. .. - OF 2004 Between: Boda Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged about 25 years, Occu: Business Petitioner Appellant Accused AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, HYDERABAD. Respondent Respondent Complainant. The address of the petitioner for Process etc. is that of hi: service of all notices and is Counsel M/s. Sri Ram Associates, Advocates, Nampally, Hyderabad. The above named petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Petition to this ‘Hon'ble Court against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No. .......... of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated .......... of + 2004 as confirmed the Judgment made in C.C. No. on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated .. of . 2002 for the following among other:—SES - 278 Lectures on Drafting, Pleading & Convey: neing (Penny Lees 1) That the judgment of the lower appellate Court is ; ° m con to law, weight of evidence and probabilitics of the ca: Mary Se. 2) That the leamed Magistrate erred in law cognizance of the case and as such the conviction is be set aside. N takin Nable to 3) That the Lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate 4 testimony of the investigation of the Investigation Officer ‘c unbelievable one and unreliable one. as 4) That the lower appellate Court erred in confirming th order of the trial court. c 5) That the trial Court and the appellate court ought to have seen that the complainant and the Investigating Officer is one ang the same. 6) That the trial Court and the appellate court failed to appreciate that no independent witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove their case. 7) The Lower Appellate Court has not properly looked into judgment of the lower court and went wrong in dismissing the appeal. 8) The trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to observe that there are so many discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. 9) That the Lower Appellate Court has not been considered of any point of the petitioner herein, and dismissing the appeal on climsy grounds. 10) The Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts. Even then the trial court convicted the petitioner herein and confirming the order of the trial court by the Lower Appellate Court.Pelll.Lee-Xil} Appeals and Revisions n9 ROM Lee MM}, a4, +: Appomts anda Reystongy 3. nenn | UM 11) The other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Criminal Revision case. Hyderabad: Counsel for the Petitioner. Date: