V.N. Hari Babu, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

¶1

I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS: 8 AND 28 OF 2008

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 8 OF 2008

¶8

Revision filed under Section 397(1) & 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned District & Sessions Judge,^{ChittoorinCrI.A.No.61} of 2005, dt. 2-1-08 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and confirming the Judgment of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor, in C.C.No. 118 of 2004, dated. 31-01-2005 and convicting them of an offence under section 411 of IPC., and sentencing them to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 week (wrongly typed as Rs.1,200/ each in the Judgment of the appellant court).

¶9

Between:

¶10

R. Babu, S/o Ramamurthy, Hindu, aged 27 years, R/o Yagapuram, H/o Janakarajapuram, PallipatTq., Tamil Nadu.

¶11

S. Venkatesam, S/o Sri Ramulu, Hindu, aged 26 years, R/o Peddanayakanpalem, Ponnai, Kadapadi Taluq, Tamil Nadu.

¶12

...Petitioners(A-1 and A-3)

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondent

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP. NO: 7 OF 2008)

¶17

Petition under Section 397 of Cr.PC praying that in^{thecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail pending disposal of the CrI.R.C., filed against the Judgment of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, in CrI.A.No. 61 of 2005, dt. 02-01-2007 and be pleased.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T C Krishnan

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 28 OF 2008

¶21

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC, against the Judgment passed in CrI.A.No. 61 of 2005 dt. 02-01-08^on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor by confirming the Judgment passed in C.C No. 118/2004 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

¶22

Between:

¶23

V.N. Hah Babu, S/o V. Narasa Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 26 Yrs, R/o Thyagapuram, H/o Janakarajapuram Pallipat Taluk, Tamilnadu.

¶24

...Petitioner/Appellant No.2/Accused No.2

¶25

AND

¶26

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through Sub-Inspector of Police,^Palasamudram (Crime No. 11 of 2004).

¶27

...Respondent/Complaianant

¶28

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP. NO: 38 OF 2008)

¶29

Petition under Section 397(1) of Cr.PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the Judgment passed in CrI.A.No. 61 of 2005, dt.02-01-2008^{onthefileofthe} District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor pending disposal^{oftheCrI.R.C.}

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T C Krishnan

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

¶32

The Court made the following Common Order:

¶33

APHC010545892016

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶35

[3521]

¶36

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶37

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶38

PRESENT

¶39

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶40

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 8 and 28 of 2008

¶41

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 8/2008

Between:

R. Babu, & Another

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd

¶47

...RESPONDENT

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶49

1.-

¶50

2.TC KRISHNAN

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent;

¶52

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶53

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 28/2008

Between:

V.N. Hari Babu,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd ...RESPONDENT

¶59

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶60

2

¶61

Dr. YLR, J V Crl.R.C.Nos.8&28of2008 Dated 18.03.2025

¶62

1.TC KRISHNAN

¶63

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶64

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶65

The Court made the following:

¶66

COMMON ORDER:

¶67

The Criminal Revision Case Nos.8 and 28 of 2008 are heard and disposed of by this Common Order inasmuch as the petitioners^hereinarethe accused in one Calendar Case before the learned Trial Court.

¶68

The Criminal Revision Cases have been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment dated 02.01.2008 in Crl.A.No.61 of 2005 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, whereby^{andwhereunderthe} appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months imposed by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

¶69

Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the grounds of the revisions submitted that even though the prosecution had not proved the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable^{doubtunderSection411} of ‘the IPC’, the learned Trial Court and also Appellate Court wrongly placed the reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and sentenced the petitioners and

¶70

3

¶71

Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.8&28of 2008 Dated 18.03.2025

¶72

urged to allow the revision cases. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Accused No.1/Petitioner No.1 in Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2008 died and revision against him was abated. Now, Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 preferred the revision case nearly more than 1 >2 decade ago; the petitioners are poor people and they were falsely implicated in the case; they are doing cultivation. The petitioners had already undergone a period of six months of Rigorous Imprisonment in the Sub-Jail, Chittoor, and the Central Prison, Kadapa. On humanitarian grounds, the revisions may be disposed of, imposing the sentence on the petitioners to which they have already undergone.

¶73

The learned counsel for the petitioners volunteered^{thatanamountof} Rs.3,000/- may be imposed on petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.28^{of2008towards} fine inasmuch as the stolen property was recovered^{andhandedovertothe} de-facto complainant. The value of the stolen property was Rs.6,000/- only.

¶74

Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioners suffered concurrent^{convictionwhichneed} not be disturbed by invoking the powers conferred under^{Sections397and} 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and urged to dismiss the revision cases while submitting that the Court may consider the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners inasmuch as the offence occurred in the year 2004.

¶75

•«.

¶76

4

¶77

Dr. YLR, J k Crl.R.C.Nos.8&28of2008 Dated 18.03.2025

¶78

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned^Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

¶79

Now the point for consideration is:

¶80

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.61 of 2005, dated 02.01.2008, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, is correct, legal and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities?And to what relief?”

¶81

The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the petitioners examined P.Ws.1 to 4, got marked Exs.P.1 to 5, and the material object M.0.1-Motor.

¶82

The learned Trial Court analyzed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail and did not believe the version of the petitioners and found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under^Section 411 of ‘the IPC.,’ inasmuch as the petitioners were found in possession of material object M.0.1. The learned Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence of the prosecution and scrutinizing the Judgment did not incline^{tointerferewiththe} findings of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. This Court by invoking the powers under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot sit as a Second Appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

¶83

There was no misreading of the evidence. There are no material irregularities in conducting the trial. Therefore, conviction suffered by the

¶84

Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.8 & 28 of 2008 Dated 18.03.2025

¶85

petitioners under Section 411 of ‘the IPC.,’ shall be maintained with regard to the sentence of imprisonment. It has to be pointed out that nearly 21 years ago the offence was committed by the petitioners. By^{nowmuchwaterhas} been flown. The right to a speedy trial, which is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to the petitioners. This right to a speedy trial includes the speedy disposal of appeals and revision cases as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HussainaraKhatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar\ This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per^{thedecisionoftheHon’ble} Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar^.

¶86

In this case, the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 were in jail for a period of 18 days either in sub-jail, Chittoor, or Central Prison, Kadapa. The Accused No.3/Petitioner No.2 in Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2008 is 46 years old and suffering from impoverishment and doing as an agricultural coolie and expressed inability to pay any amount towards further fine and he has wife and unmarried children and he is only the sole breadwinner of the family. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2008, who is accused No.2 is aged about 45 years. The learned counsel for the petitioners volunteered that the Accused No.2 may be imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- as a measure of penance. The said statement is

¶87

recorded and approved.

¶88

' Air 1979 SC 1360 ^2000(1) BUR 37

¶89

fa

¶90

Dr. YLR, J « Crl.R.C.Nos.8&28of2008 Dated 18.03.2025^r

¶91

For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of while maintaining the conviction recorded for the offence^{underSection411}

¶92

of ‘the IPC.,’ while imposing the sentence to which the petitioners had already undergone, and Rs.3,000/is imposed on the Accused No.2/ petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2008. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶93

Further, the fine of Rs.3,000/- shall be deposited by the Accused No.2/ Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2008 before the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chitttoor, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure to pay Rs.3,000/- by the petitioner/Accused No.2, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period^ofoneweek. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶94

As a sequel. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶95

Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,