Partly allowed

Buddu Chiranjeevi v. The State of a.P.rep. by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC3 Feb 2011CRLRC/638/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below to the period already undergone by him under Section 292 IPC, deeming it a fit case for interference given the petitioner was in jail for only two weeks, while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period undergone by the petitioner; the fine was maintained.

Buddu Chiranjeevi Vs The State of a.P.rep. by… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.638 of 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The petitioner herein (Accused No.2) and two others were tried by the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, in C.C.No.77 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Section 292 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 and P-8 were marked. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced them i.e., the petitioner herein and others to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each.

¶5

The same was questioned by the petitioner herein and another by filing Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2001 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, who by his judgment, dated 23.03.2004, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, accused No.2 approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶6

The brief facts of the case are that A-1 was the Manager-cum-Care taker of Rajendra Theatre, Chirala, A- 2 is the Projector Operator and A-3 was the producer of the film “Looking Eyes” for telugu edition on behalf of his Siva Sakthi Pictures, Vijayawada. While so, A-3 supplied

¶7

the said dubbing film to be exhibited in Rajendra Theatre from 04.01.1997. A-1 and A-2 were exhibiting the said film. On 05.01.1997, on information that the said film contains most obscene pictures, P.W-5 took P.W.3 and L.W-12 to the said Theatre as mediators and surprised the cinema hall and found that A-1 and A-2 were exhibiting the said movie and as such arrested them and seized 4 cans of film under the cover of mahazar. Later, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused.

¶8

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in Crl.R.C.No.547 of 2004, which was filed by A-1 against the said judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, was pleased to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by both the Courts below to that of the period of sentence already undergone by him, vide judgment dated 20.01.2011. He further submitted that the present petitioner also stands on the same footing as that of the petitioner-A-1 in the said Crl.R.C.No.547 of 2004 and requested this Court to take a lenient view, though it is not a fit case for interference, having regard to the fact that the present petitioner was in jail for about two weeks.

¶9

In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record and found that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The petitioner herein was arrested on the date of the incident and two days later he was released on bail and subsequently, immediately, after dismissal of the Criminal appeal on 23.03.2004, he was again taken into custody and only by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 06.04.2004, he was released from the jail Thus, it is clear that the

¶10

petitioner was in jail for a period of about two weeks. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken.

¶11

Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner-A-2 by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine.

¶12

Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

¶13

___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶14

03^rd February 2011 dr

Buddu Chiranjeevi v. The State of a.P.rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddu Chiranjeevi v. The State of a.P.rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palla Chinna A-1 Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Narasingoju Narashimha Chari

The State of a.P., Vs Narsingoju Narsimha Chari

T. Sree Ramulu Naidu Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

Pinnapothu Easwara Rao Vs v.Rajendra Prasad

M. Srinivasa Reddy, Vs Md. Younus