HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1242 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The revision petitioners are before this Court questioning the concurrent findings of conviction for the offence under Section 353 of IPC by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No.1634 of 2005 dated 18.11.2008, which is confirmed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.397 of 2008, dated 27.07.2009.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.09.2004, two police constables, who were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 were attending traffic duty from 12.00 noon to 6.00 p.m at V.V. Statue. At about 15.30 hours, both the petitioners were on motor bike coming from Khairatabad side and took a right turn towards Khairatabad flyover which was prohibited. For the reason of taking wrong turn, there was an obstruction of the traffic coming from the other side. Then the police constable/P.W.2 stopped them and questioned them about driving in a wrong direction, for which the first petitioner/A1 got down and caught hold of the shirt collar of the constable and abused him. Further, the 2nd petitioner/A2 challenged P.W.2, the other constable to come down in civil dress for a fight if he has any guts.
3. On the basis of the complaint filed by P.W.1, charge- sheet was laid against these petitioners for the offence under Section 353 of IPC.
4. Learned Magistrate found that the act of these petitioners in catching hold of the collar of P.W.2, who was on duty and threatening him cannot be condoned and public servants need social protection so that they may not be demoralized in performance of their duties. Having said so, learned Magistrate convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 353 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
5. On appeal, learned Sessions Judge found that the act of the petitioners in confronting public servant who was on duty and assaulting him amounts to use of criminal force and prohibiting public servants from discharging their official duty. However, learned Sessions Judge found that the imprisonment of one year inflicted on the petitioners was too harsh and proposed to alter the sentence of imprisonment to simple imprisonment of one week.
6. In the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioners did not have any intention of causing obstruction to the duty of the constables P.Ws.1 and 2. However, there was heated exchange of words when the incident occurred. In the said circumstances, when the petitioners have already undergone five days of imprisonment, according to the counsel for the petitioners, and the incident is of the year 2004 whence 18 years have lapsed, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the imprisonment to the period already undergone.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 23.12.2022 kvs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1242 OF 2009 Date: 23.12.2022.
kvs