Partly allowed

Talluri Rambabu , Tambi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Mar 2011CRLRC/614/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner who had completed over nine months of jail time for theft of copper wire, before setting him at liberty.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of one year and six months rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; petitioner set at liberty if not required in any other crime.

Talluri Rambabu , Tambi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.614 of 2011

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 17.09.2010, made by the Sessions Judge (VII Additional Sessions Judge, Family Court), West Godavari Division, Eluru in Crl.A.No.103 of 2010, confirming the judgment, dated 8.2.2010 passed in C.C.No.192 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District.

¶4

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶5

On the night of 17.6.2008 some unknown offenders had broken the transformer situated in the fields of L.W.2 one Mandavalli Rambabu and committed theft of wire worth Rs.4,000/- from it and in that connection, a report was given by him. The Assistant Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L (Operations), T.Narsapuram lodged a report before the T.Narsapuram Police, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.49/2008 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC and investigated into. So also on 13.7.2008 some unknown offenders had broken the transformer standing in the fields of Sayalu Peerayya and committed theft of Copper wire worth of Rs.5,000/- from it. On the report given by him, the said Assistant Engineer again lodged a report before the T.Narsapuram Police, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.59/2009. During the course of investigation on 31.07.2008 at 2 p.m., the Investigation Officer arrested the petitioner (A2) and another viz.,Katru Rayappa (A.1) at Mathamgudem Center on EluruChintalapudi road and seized some stolen property from their possession and on the confession statement, which led to the discovery of fact, accused No.3-Potnuri Babu Rao was arrested on 31.7.2008 and the copper wire bundles each 5 Kgs in both crime Nos.49/2008 and 59/2008 including other cases were seized from him

¶6

at his scrap iron shop at Ambedkar Nagar, Tangellamudi, 50^th Division, Eluru, under the cover of mediators report. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 379 or 411 IPC against the petitioner and others and the same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.192 of 2008.

¶7

On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused No.2 guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and six months. The said judgment was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.103 of 2010. But the said appeal was dismissed. The same is questioned in this revision.

¶8

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for more than nine months.

¶10

In the facts and circumstances and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the judgment impugned herein does not warrant any interference. But however, the material on record goes to show that the petitioner was in jail from 1.8.2008 to 19.9.2008, and again on the date of pronouncement of judgment impugned viz., 17.09.2010, the petitioner was taken into custody and since then, he has been in jail, and as of now, he has undergone imprisonment for a period of more than nine months. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the sentence of R.I. for a period of one year and six months is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶11

In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months for the offence punishable under section 411 IPC imposed against the petitioner herein viz., Talluri Rambabu alias Tambi by the learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2010, by judgment dated 17.9.2010, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime.

¶12

With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶13

_______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J

¶14

1^st March, 2011 Nn

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶16

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.614 of 2011

¶17

1.3.2011

Talluri Rambabu , Tambi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talluri Rambabu , Tambi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siripurapu Arjuna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Ram Mohan, Vs State rep by its Inspector of police Acb, Warangal Range

Thatikonda Ramulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanaparthy Ram Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanaparthy Ram Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Karukonda Archana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh