Partly allowed

Shaik Nabi Hussain, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC26 Nov 2012CRLRC/1500/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against a confirmed conviction for criminal breach of trust, the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment already undergone while maintaining the fine, considering restitution, departmental action, and the accused's age.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained; accused set at liberty if not required for other crimes.

Shaik Nabi Hussain, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

Crl.R.C.No.1500 of 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 06.09.2005, passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Prakasam Division, Ongole in Crl.A.No.42 of 2002, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, vide judgment dated 25.02.2002 in C.C.No.83 of 1998, was confirmed.

¶5

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

¶6

While the petitioner/accused was working as Sub-Post Master in Mogallur from 05.07.1993 to 13.06.1997, he misappropriated the deposits accepted from the public to a tune of Rs.93,100/- and Rs.4,750/- on temporary basis pertaining to 13 Saving Bank Accounts. P.W.1-the Assistant Superintendent of Police Office, Kanigiri, inspected the post office, found lapses on the part of the accused and sent a report to Veligandla Police and thereafter, P.W.6-the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.10 of 1998 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. During the course of investigation, P.W.6 recorded the statements of witnesses concerned and after completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet.

¶7

3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P30 were marked. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of defence.

¶8

4. The learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 409 IPC ; and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 477-A IPC. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.42 of 2002 and the lower appellate Court on reappreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present revision.

¶9

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶10

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the petitioner has already been paid the entire amounts to the depositors, who also deposed before the Court that they received the amounts during the relevant period and they have no grievance against the petitioner. He further submitted that the Department after due enquiry imposed the punishment of increment cut for six years and now, he is continuing in service and therefore, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is

¶11

concerned.

¶12

7. From the record, it appears that the petitioner was in jail for a substantial period. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments impugned. But however, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the age of the petitioner, who is likely to be retired from service and also the lapse of 16 years period from the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the said Court. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime.

¶13

8. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

__________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 28^th November, 2012 sj

Shaik Nabi Hussain, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Nabi Hussain, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.R.Sridhar, Vs The State rep.by its S.I., of Police, Yadamari P.S.,Chittoor

Uppu Venkata Rao, Vs The State o Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Kotbi Komutsish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor

B.Mary Sara Danamma, Vs Naddi Venkateswaramma

Tamtam Purnachandra Rao, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Bhukya Kotiya, Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor