Telangana High Court
Thupalli Sudhakar, Nalgonda Dt. vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P. on 21 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1886 of 2014
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed by the
petitioner/accused No.2 against the Judgment in Criminal
Appeal No.496 of 2013, dated 15.07.2014 passed by the
learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at
Hyderabad (for short 'the appellate Court').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.01.2013, on
reliable information about running a brothel house at
H.No.A-68, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad, police raided the
said premises and found Accused Nos.1 and 2 and also A3 in
a separate room along with sex workers. On the statements
being recorded, police arrested A1 to A3, recovered items
from their possession and registered a case in Crime No.45 of
2013 for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5(1)(d) of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act')
against A1 and A2 and for the offence under Section 7 of the
Act against A3 and sent them to judicial custody.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1
to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 and MOs.1 to 8 were
marked before the learned Trial Court in C.C.No.20 of 2013.
On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no
documents were marked.
4. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidences
on record, the learned Trial Court found the
appellant/accused No.2 guilty for the offence under Section
3(2)(a), 4 and 5 of the Act and he was convicted for the said
offences under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence
under Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, 1956. Further, the accused
was convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Act and
sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of
six months. Further, the accused was convicted for the
offence under Section 5 of the Act and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for a period of two (2) months. Further, directed that all the
sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention if
any undergone by the accused as under trial prisoner, shall
be set off under Section 428 of IPC.
5. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner/appellant preferred
Criminal Appeal No.496 of 2013 before the appellate Court,
the learned appellate Court after examining the material
facts before it, has partly allowed the Criminal Appeal by
setting aside the conviction and sentence so far as Section 5
of the Act and rest of the conviction and sentence in
judgment passed in C.C.No.20 of 2013 dated 14.05.2013 was
confirmed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/
accused, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent-State and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
submit that the petitioner was initially in judicial custody for
certain period and later, he was enlarged on bail granted by
the trial Court, appellate Court as well as this Court. He
further submits that it is apparent that the petitioner has
undergone mental agony during the lengthy and long
proceedings initiated by the trial Court as well as the
appellant Court. Hence seeks to allow the present criminal
revision case.
8. Though the Appellate Court had set aside the
conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 5 of
the Act, since all the sentences shall run concurrently, the
maximum sentence of imprisonment against the accused
remained unaltered. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/accused did not place anything before this Court,
to discredit the evidence. Therefore, no interference is
warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard
to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took
place long back and during this period the revision
petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In
these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is
expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the
period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused
while maintaining the fine confirmed by the appellate Court.
9. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the
conviction imposed by the appellate Court. However, the
sentence imposed by the learned trial Court to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence
under 3(2)(a) and simple imprisonment for a period of six
months for the offence under Section 4 of the Act, which
was confirmed by the appellate Court, is set off to the period
already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused, while
maintaining the fine confirmed by the appellate Court
against the petitioner/appellant/accused.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Dated: 21.01.2025
gvl
