Gaddam Srinivas Yadav, ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3557 Tel

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    CRL.Rc.No.2742 OF 2016
ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and

401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.752 of 2016

dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad confirming the judgment of II Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.434 of 2012. By the

said judgment, learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

convicted the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under

Section 353 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment

for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. Indefault of

payment of fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a

period of six months.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.04.2022, Ch.Upender

(PW.1), the Sub-Inspector of Police, Afzalgunj Police Station was

deputed to night duty in RE-III vehicle along with PW.2, PW.3 and

Home guards (LW.4 and LW.5) and they were performing patrolling

duty and at about 0030 hours on 11.04.2022 in the midnight they

found several persons are consuming alcohol at RTC Depot and at 2 ASR,J Crlrc_2742_2016

that time Section 144 Cr.P.C. was in force due to communal

incidents. Then PW.1 instructed the said persons to go away from the

scene, but the accused abused, threatened with dire consequences by

showing his index finger saying that he would get him suspended and

obstructed in his duties. As such, the SI of police lodged a report

under Ex.P.1 and basing on the same, a case in Crime No.213 of 2012

was registered for the offences under Sections 353, 506 IPC and

investigated into and after completion of investigation, the

charge-sheet was filed.

3. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, both oral

and documentary i.e.Pws.1 to 6 and Exs.P.1 to P4, held that the

prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt and thus, found the accused guilty for the offence

under Section 353 IPC and accordingly convicted him for the said

offence under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him as

aforementioned.

4. On appeal being filed by the accused in Crl.A.No.752 of 2016,

the lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence,

concurred with the findings of the trial Court confirmed the 3 ASR,J Crlrc_2742_2016

conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and

dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the

same, the present revision is filed.

5. Heard Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

respondent-State. Perused the material available on record.

6. Thus, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the

impugned judgment suffers from illegality or infirmity warranting

interference of this Court?

7. The evidence of prosecution reveals that PW.1 while working

as Sub-Inspector of Police in Afjalgunj Police Station was deputed

night duty on 11.04.2022 in RE-III vehicle along with PW.2, PW.3

and two Home guards (LW.4 and LW.5) and they were performing

patrolling duty and at about 0030 hours

in the midnight they found several persons consuming alcohol at RTC

Depot and at that time Section 144 Cr.P.C. was in force due to

communal incidents. Then PW.1 instructed the said persons to go

away from the scene, but the accused abused, threatened with dire

consequences saying that he would see that PW.1 would be 4 ASR,J Crlrc_2742_2016

suspended, by showing his index finger and obstructed his official

duties. In the cross-examination nothing was elicited to disbelieve his

testimony. PWs.2 and 3 supported the evidence of PW.1. PWs.4 and

5, who, are the independent witnesses have not supported the case of

prosecution. PW.6 is the Inspector of Police and registered the case,

investigated and examined the witnesses and laid charge sheet against

the accused. The evidence of PWs.1 to PW.3 was cogent and, as

such, the trial Court believed the same as trustworthy and found the

accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC.

8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that if this Court finds that

the petitioner guilty of alleged offence, while upholding his

conviction, may consider that the accused is without any criminal

antecedents and the alleged offence occurred about ten years back and

having regard to these circumstances, may consider to alter the

sentence awarded to the petitioner and modify the same to the extent

of imposing fine instead of sentencing him with imprisonment. In

support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Apex Court in

Hari Babu v.State of Maharastra1.

1   (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 43
                                     5                               ASR,J
                                                          Crlrc_2742_2016

9. Coming to the present case, according to the evidence of

prosecution, the petitioner has threatened PW.1 by saying that he

would get him suspended by his influence and showed his index

finger and obstructed his duties. After taking into consideration of

the circumstances that lead to launching of prosecution case against

the petitioner and as the acts of petitioner has attracted the ingredients

of Section 353 IPC and the same is proved with cogent evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 and 6. Learned Senior Counsel has not pointed out

anything which has discredited the evidence. The concurrent findings

were arrived at by both the Courts below are on appreciation of entire

evidence in proper perspective. Thus, there is concurrent finding of

both the Courts below with regard to conviction of the petitioner for

the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC. Therefore, no

interference is warranted by this Court in the revision as far as the

conviction is concerned.

10. But, after taking into consideration of the circumstances,

that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is not required

in any other criminal case and also considering the submissions of

learned Senior Counsel and the judgment of Apex Court cited supra, 6 ASR,J Crlrc_2742_2016

it is considered just and proper to alter the jail sentence awarded to

the petitioner to that of enhanced fine amount only.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Revision

Case is allowed-in-part, the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner by

the Courts below is altered and is accordingly, sentence of one year

imprisonment is modified and confined only to enhancement of fine

from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)

in default of which, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of one month. The petitioner shall deposit the fine

amount in the trial Court within a period of one month from the date

of this order and failure to deposit the fine amount would result in

reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below. As a sequel

thereto, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

                                         ________________________
                                          A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J

08.07.2022

Nvl
 7             ASR,J
    Crlrc_2742_2016