R.Babu Another vs The State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 925 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                CRL.R.C.Nos.7 and 29 OF 2008

COMMON ORDER:-

      As the petitioners in both the Criminal Revision Cases are

Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.117 of 2004 on the file of the

Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor

and also appellants in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2005 on the file

of the court of District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, both

Criminal Revision Cases are being disposed of by this common

order.

2.    Accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C.No.117 of 2004 on the file of

the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chittoor filed Crl.R.C.No.7 of 2008, whereas Accused No.2 filed

Criminal Revision Case No.29 of 2008.

3.    The case of the prosecution succinctly is thus:-

      That there are series of thefts took place within the limits

of Palasamudram Police Station on 27-02-2004, 29-02-2024 and

on 01-03-2004 respectively. The electrical motors and pumps

are being stolen from the fields of local agriculturists. During the

course   of   investigation,    the   Sub-Inspector      of   Police,

Palasamudram P.S. on credible information at about 3.00 P.M on

01-03-2004

apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the presence of

mediators and seized stolen properties under a cover of

panchanama. Subsequently, after completion of investigation,

Pw.5-Sub-Inspector of police, Palasamudram P.S. filed charge

sheet.

4. The case was numbered as C.C.No.117 of 2004 on the file

of the court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chittoor. After completion of trial, the learned Magistrate

convicted all the three (3) accused under Section 411 IPC and

sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of

six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer

simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same,

Accused Nos.1 to 3 filed Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2005 on the

file of the Court of District Sessions Judge, Chittoor. After

considering the entire material on record, the Appeal was

dismissed by judgment dated 02-01-2008. Aggrieved by the

same, Accused Nos.1 and 3 filed Crl.R.C.No.7 of 2008 and

Accused No.2 filed Crl.R.C.No.29 of 2008.

5. Heard both sides.

6. This court perused the entire material on record.

7. Admittedly, Accused Nos.1 to 3 have been in possession of

the stolen property. The evidence of Pws.1, 3 and 4, who are the

farmers, have specifically stated that either the electrical motors

or pumps belong to them were stolen by some unknown persons

in their fields. According to them, they identified the stolen

articles. Admittedly, as per the evidence of mediators, the stolen

property was recovered from the petitioners/accused. In fact,

both the courts below have concurrently held that the petitioners

are guilty of the offence under Section 411 IPC. In that view of

the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction

recorded by both the courts. However, as the offence took place

about 18 years back, this court is inclined to take a lenient view

with regard to sentence of imprisonment.

8. In that view of the matter, both the Criminal Revision

Cases are dismissed. However, the sentence of imprisonment

alone is reduced from six(6) months to the period already

undergone by all the petitioners/accused.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 21-02-2022.

TSNR