High Court allowed revision partly, upholding conviction under Section 353 IPC but reducing sentence from one year to six months due to lapse of 18 years.
Sentence reduced from one year to six months simple imprisonment; prior sentence period to be given set off under Section 428 CrPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2549 OF 2011
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC, against the Judgment and sentence passed by the XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2008, dated 23.12.2011 confirming the Judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.219 of 2006, dated 11.01.2008 on the file of the court of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet, Guntur District.
Between;
Shaik Jani Basha @ Jani, S/o Mohammad Ali, Aged about 31 years R/o Burnpet, Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist.
...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.
...RESPONDENT
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP. NO; 3866 OF 2011)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the conviction and sentence passed by the XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in Crl.A.No.21 of 2008, dated 23.12.2011 confirming the judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.219 of 2006, dated 11.01.2008 on the file of the court of the I Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist., and to release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the CrI.R.C.
f f
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MD Saleem
Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following ORDER :
&>
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2549 of 2011
ORDER:
This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 23.12.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.21 of 2008 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the convictionandsentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC in the judgment dated 11.01.2008 in C.C.No.219 of 2006 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet.
- Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
On 07.09.2006 at about 8.00 p.m., PW-1 who is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 2159 of Vinukonda Depot, driven the same to the place below the over bridge at Narasaraopet, which is earmarked for the RTC Bus stop,forthe purpose of convenience of the passengers and PW-2 who is conductor in the same bus found the mini lorry bearingNo.AP16 AMTR 9075 parked at the over bridge and when PW-1 askedthe accused, who is the driver of the mini lorry, to remove the vehicle.
lis
2
he rebelled against him and caught hold of the shirt of PW-1, assaulted him and obstructed him from discharging his legitimate duties though the parking place was allotted to R.T.C.Buses only. On the same day, PW-1 gave a complaint against theaccused.
- Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused.
- Heard Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.
3
- The point that arises for consideration in this revisionis;
to 7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, PW-1 who is the driverof A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 2159 and PW-2 isthe conductor of the said bus.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theDistrict and Sessions Court erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner in proper perspective; the District andSessionsCourt ought to have seen that the ingredients of Section353arenot made out against the petitioner by the prosecutionsincePW.1 is not a public servant as per section 21 of IPC; boththeCourts erred in convicting the petitioner merely relying ontheevidence PWs.1 to 7 coupled with Ex.PI to P4 and hence, he praysto allow the present revision case.
- On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court as well the District and Sessions Court, after duly evaluating the evidenceonrecordheld
4
'Si
that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner/accused and hence, the present revision case is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the rival contentions, on perusal of therecord placed on before this Court, it is evident from the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 that on 07.09.2006 at 8.00 p.m., PW-1andPW-2 while proceeding RTC Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 2159 reached the over bridge at Narasaraopet, they noticed a mini lorry bearing No.AP 16 AMTR 9075 was parked at the over bridge acrossthe road, then PW-1 asked the accused to remove the vehicle as it caused hurdles to the bus. Then the accused instead of removing the mini lorry rebelled against him and caught holdofhiscollar and dragged himby caught hold of his shirt. Then the Home guard, who is on duty, came there and on seeing theHome guard, the accused left him, not only the accused caused obstruction to him in discharging his duty and createdfearinhis mind PW-1 to discharge his duty. 12. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 consistent, cogent andthey are not speaking false against the accused.PW-5 is Home guard alleged to be the eyewitness also reached to the scene when he was on duty and noticed the accused caughthold \
5
/W
of the shirt of PW-1, who is discharging his official duty, and abused him in filthy language. 13. Both the trial Court as well as District and Sessions Court, after duly evaluating the evidence on record found that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused.
6
the courts concurrently held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused. In these circumstances, thisCourtisofthe considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the said offence.
- However, while arguing the matter, learned counselforthe petitioner/accused submits that the accident was occurred on 07.09.2006 and there are mitigating circumstances toreducethe sentence imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the District and Sessions Court. He also brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court reported in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi)\ wherein the Apex Court consideredthefacts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the District and Sessions from two (2) months to one (1) month rigorous imprisonment.
- As well in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “theyarenot inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place
'AIR 197-7 sc 892 22019 (3) Crimes 89
7
more than a quarter of century back and to send theaccused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice. 19. No doubt, in the present case also the incident wassaidto have happened on 07.09.2006 and by this time eighteen (18) years have already lapsed. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice. the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six (06)monthsfrom one (01) year for the offence under Section 353 ofIPC.
8
to serve the remaining sentence, if not, the learned Magistrate
concerned shall take steps against the petitioner.
shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- E.KAMESWAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 1-^
SECTION OFFICER
To
7. THREE CD COPIES
TAC
'll
HIGH COURT
DATED:18/12/2023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.2549 of 2011
kf/Zj
<: :t:
\o 0 9 AUG 2029 % Fiji
yf
Currani Section
V
THIS CRLRC IS ALLOWED4N PART
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial court as confirmed by the District and Sessions Court?
Whether the sentencing court should reduce the period of imprisonment given the lapse of 18 years since the offence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi)Referred¶50
Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi)
Mohinder Singh v. State of HaryanaReferred¶51
Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 197 Sc 892
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Shaik Jani Basha @ Jani
State of Andhra Pradesh
V Srinivas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
