Telangana High Court
G.Bhanu Prasad, Secunderabad., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd., on 4 April, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.444 OF 2014
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the
judgment dated 27.01.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.430 of 2013
on the file of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences-
cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad
(for short, "the appellate Court") in modifying the judgment dated
10.04.2013 in C.C.No.369 of 2007 on the file of the learned XI
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad (for
short, "the trial Court").
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard
Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent State. Perused the record.
3. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on
several occasions. Even today, there is no representation on
behalf of the petitioner inspite of listing the matter under the
caption, "for dismissal". Therefore, this Court is inclined to
proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh 1, wherein it was categorically held that the High
Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter
without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.2006, one
A.Renuka (PW1) lodged a complaint stating that her daughter's
marriage was performed on 14.12.2006, at Agarsen Bhavan
Marriage Function hall, 149, Brig. Sayeed Road, Secunderabad
and during the night hours, her bag containing cash of
Rs.35,000/-, gold necklace set with ear studs weighing 20 gms,
gold black beads set weighing 190 gms, gold ear rings weighing 4
gms, two gold chains weighing 4 gms, two gold chains weighing
25 gms, one gold ear ring set weighing 3 gms and one gold single
bangle weighing 12 gms was stolen by an unknown offender.
Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registered against
an unknown offender for the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C.
5. PW3 had recorded the previous statement of PW1 and sent
the information to all the police stations. While so, on
09.04.2007, at about 5:30 P.M., on receipt of credible information
Ch. Kushalkar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Begumpet
(PW2) proceeded to Pot Market, Secunderabad near Gowtham
(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720
Jewellers and noticed the accused moving in suspicious
circumstances. PW2 had taken him into custody, secured the
presence of two panch witnesses and recorded the confession of
the accused and recovered cash of Rs.35,000/- and MOs.1 to 6.
6. The trial Court vide judgment dated 10.04.2013 in
C.C.No.369 of 2007, sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to
suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner preferred an appeal.
7. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment partly allowed
the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed
against the petitioner for the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C.
and acquitted him for the said offence. However, the appellate
Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 of
I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment
for one month. Assailing, the same, the present Revision.
8. As per the grounds raised in the Revision, the petitioner
contended that the appellate Court without appreciating the
evidence available on record convicted the petitioner for the
offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. which is untenable. Therefore,
the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the
appellate Court upon careful scrutiny of the material available on
record, rightly passed the impugned judgment and the
interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to
dismiss the Revision.
10. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined
PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P4, MOs.1 to 6. On behalf of
the defence, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D12
were marked. Upon careful consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that the evidence
of PWs.1 to 4 clinchingly establishes that MOs.1 to 6 i.e., the
stolen properties were recovered from the possession of the
petitioner by PW2 in the presence of PW4 under the cover of
Ex P2. The petitioner failed to provide any explanation as to how
he came into the possession of the material objects. He failed to
file any documentary proof to show that the said objects belonged
to him. In the absence of any explanation, it has to be presumed
that he is a thief as per Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Therefore, the trial Court held the petitioner guilty for the offence
under Section 380 of I.P.C. and rendered the judgment dated
10.04.2013 in C.C.No.369 of 2007.
11. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the material
available on record observed that the theft of the articles was
occurred on 14.12.2006 and the articles were seized from the
petitioner on 09.04.2007. There was a gap of nearly six months
from the date of incident to the date of recovery. Though there is
no explanation from the petitioner regarding the possession of the
articles, but the appellate Court, upon considering the time gap
between the date of offence and the date of recovery of articles,
convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C.
and rendered the impugned judgment.
12. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order
dated 06.03.2014 suspended the sentence of imprisonment
imposed against the petitioner, by the appellate Court pending
the Revision by directing him to execute a bond of Rs.10,000/-
with two sureties of a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial
Court, subject to payment of fine if not paid already.
13. In the present case, the appellate Court held that the
petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 411 of I.P.C., which finding, in my considered view, does
not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and
upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental
agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial
Court as well as the appellate Court and as eleven long years
have already elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this
Court is inclined to take a lenient view in so far as the petitioner
is concerned and reduce the sentence imposed against him to the
period of imprisonment already undergone.
15. The petitioner is directed to deposit a fine of Rs.10,000/- to
the credit of the trial Court within a period of three months from
today.
16. If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction,
he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
17. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case
in all other aspects, stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 04.04.2024
ESP
