Telangana High Court
M.Vivekanand Another vs The State Of A.P. on 23 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
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
