Telangana High Court
Mohd Abdul Gaffer Mohd Gaffer vs The State Of Telangana on 25 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Criminal Revision Case Nos.696 & 697 of 2024
Between:
Mohd. Abdul Gaffer Mohd Gaffer
...Petitioner
v.
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Hyderabad
...Respondent
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 25.02.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
+ Criminal Revision Case Nos.696 & 697 of 2024
% 25.02.2025
# Between:
Mohd. Abdul Gaffer Mohd Gaffer
...Petitioner
v.
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Hyderabad
...Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri T.Jaswanth Kumar
^ Counsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2023) 3 SCC 184
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL R.C.NOs.696 AND 697 OF 2024
3
COMMON ORDER:
Crl.R.C.No.696 of 2024:
1 Petitioner preferred this revision case challenging the
judgment dated 13.10.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.529 of 2016 by the
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein and
whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under
Section 379 IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of three years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Crl.R.C.No.697 of 2024:
2 Petitioner preferred this revision case challenging the
judgment dated 13.10.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.528 of 2016 by the
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein and
whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under
Section 379 IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of three years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.
3 In both the cases, the petitioner herein was tried by the
learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,
for an offence punishable under Section 382 IPC in C.C.Nos.65 of
2015 and 64 of 2015. The gravamen of the charge in both the
cases was that the petitioner along with one another committed
theft of gold chains by snatching away them from the body of the
de facto complainants in the respective cases. In connection
therewith separate crimes viz., Cr.No.83 of 2014 and Cr.No.81 of
2014 were registered and during the course of investigation the
police apprehended the petitioner and another while they were
trying to sell the stolen property in a jewelery shop at
Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. Seizure panchanams were got reduced
into writing by P.W.2 in both the cases. After completion of
investigation the police filed charge sheets in both the cases and
the same were taken cognizance by the learned VI Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide C.C.Nos.65 of 2015 and
64 of 2015.
4 On an analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in
both the cases, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 382 IPC and sentenced him to
suffer simple imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- in both the cases separately, by giving set off to the
period of remand already undergone as contemplated under
Section 428 Cr.P.C, vide judgments dated 11.5.2016.
5 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred two separate
criminal appeals vide Crl.A.Nos.529 of 2016 and 528 of 2016. The
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide judgments
dated 13.10.2016 dismissed the appeals. However, the learned
Sessions Judge altered the Section of law to 379 IPC instead of 382
IPC as concluded by the learned trial Court, however, retained the
period of sentence imposed by the trial Court, intoto. Hence these
two criminal revision cases.
6 Sri T.Jaswanth Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
in both the cases vehemently contended that the prosecution
failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under
Section 379 IPC as was decided by the learned appellate court and
also under Section 382 IPC as was decided by the learned trial
Court.
7 It is his predominant contention that the petitioner is
accused in multiple cases and all the cases were disposed of
between 2016 to 2018, sentencing him to suffer imprisonment
separately. Though the petitioner had served the period of three
years sentence, still he is languishing in jail for the reason that the
sentences awarded against him were ordered to run consecutively.
Hence, in view of the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in
Rajender Vs. State of Rajasthan, he contended that the sentences
of imprisonment ordered against the petitioner in both the cases
may be ordered to run concurrently.
8 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that the judgments impugned in these revision cases are
based on sound appreciation of facts and law and that the
petitioner is a habitual offender and hence the petitioner is not
entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in these revisions.
9 In view of the above factual position and the complexity
involved in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
in both the cases and also since these two criminal revisions are
directed against the judgments passed by both the courts below on
same set of facts and circumstances, and since the petitioner is
one and the same in both the cases, I deem it appropriate to
dispose of these two criminal cases by way of this common order.
10 Firstly, coming to the veracity of the evidence available in
both the cases, I see no compelling reason to discard the evidence
available on record and also to interfere with the well considered
judgments of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge in both the
appeals inasmuch as the evidence of P.W.2 the panch witness to
the seizure of the stolen property from the possession of the
petitioner while he along with another was trying to sell away it at
Mehdipatnam is convincing, cogent and trustworthy. Nothing is
elicited in the cross examination of this witness to impeach his
evidence. So much so, the evidence of the de facto complainants
in the respective cases is also believable insofar as their
identification of the property in the Court. Though the trial Court
found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 382 IPC,
the learned appellate Court after reappreciation of the evidence
found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 379 IPC as
the facts and circumstances of the case would be governed by
Section 379 of IPC only, however, retained the period of sentence
imposed against the petitioner in both the cases. Hence, I see no
ground much less any plausible to interfere with the judgments of
the appellate court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under
Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.
11 Coming to the next contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the sentences of imprisonment ordered against the
petitioner in both the cases may be ordered to run concurrently
instead of consecutively, let me see whether the petitioner is
entitled to such relief or not in the given facts and circumstances
of the cases.
12 The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed particulars of
the crimes registered against the petitioner in detail, wherein he
was convicted and sentenced for various offences and in different
cases. The particulars of the said cases are shown hereunder to
have a clear understanding whether the petitioner is entitled to
the relief sought for or not.
Sl.No. Cr.No. C.C.No Conviction Sentence Date of Court
u/S Conviction
1 81 of 2014 of 64of 382 IPC 3years 11.05.2016 VI Addl.
PS. Humayun 2015 CMM Hyd.
Nagar
2 83 of 2014 of 65 of 382 IPC 3years 11.05.2016 VI Addl.
PS. Humayun 2015 CMM, Hyd.
Nagar
3 328 of 2014 of 71 of 382 IPC 3years 11.05.2016 VI Addl.
PS. Humayun 2015 CMM, Hyd.
Nagar
4 379 of 2014 of 75 of 382 IPC 3years 11.05.2016 VI Addl.
PS. Humayun 2015 CMM, Hyd.
Nagar
5 554 of 2016 987 of 411 IPC 2years 21.06.2016 IAddl.
of PS. 2017 CMM, Hyd.
Saifabad
6 203 of 2016 743 of 392 IPC 3years 17.07.2018 II Addl.
of PS. Sultan 2017 CMM, Hyd.
Bazar
7 159 of 2016 of 727of 392 IPC 3years 27.10.2017 VIII Addl.
PS. Mirchowk 2016 CMM, Hyd.
13 The petitioner herein seeking the very same relief as
contended in these two criminal revision cases, filed
Crl.P.No.12940 of 2023, before this Court and by order dated
26.02.2024 this Court dismissed the said petition observing that
the petitioner is not entitled to the said relief inasmuch as he was
shown to be a habitual offender.
14 When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more
offences, under Section 31 of Cr.P.C. the Court can direct that
such punishments shall run concurrently. But in the case on hand,
the petitioner was charged with and tried in two difference cases,
of course for the same offence but in connection with different
crimes registered on different facts and circumstances though the
victims / defacto complainants are also not the same. It is settled
principle of law that unless the Court directs that substantive
sentences should run concurrently, the normal principle is that
sentences would commence one after the expiration of the other,
i.e., consecutively, in view of Section 427 (iii) Cr.P.C which
envisages that 'The general rule is that where there are different
transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been
decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot
be awarded under Section 427 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter,
the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
in Iqram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 does not come to rescue of
the petitioner. Of course, Section 427 (iv) states that under
Section 427 (1) CrPC the court has the power and discretion to
issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run
concurrently with the previous sentence. But the later part of the
(2023) 3 SCC 184
very same section envisages that "......however discretion has to be
exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or
the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there
must be a specific direction or order by the court that the
subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous
sentence".
15 In the case on hand, the trial Court as well as the appellate
court has not given such a discretionary direction. Since the relief
claimed by the petitioner in these two criminal cases was already
struck down by this Court in Crl.P.No.12940 of 2023, I see no
reason to take a different view in this regard.
16 In view of the above reasoning, I find no irregularity much
less any illegality in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, these
two criminal revision cases are dismissed.
17 However, since the crimes were of the year 2014, and since
the petitioner was also convicted in other crimes, I deem it
appropriate to take a lenient view in awarding the sentence.
Accordingly, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two years in both the cases.
18 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these two criminal
revision cases shall also stand dismissed.
____________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Date: 25.02.2025
L.R. Copy
Yes / No.
Kvsn
