Partly allowed

Chamala Gowri Sankara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Jul 2013CRLRC/1235/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision against conviction and sentence for Section 489(c) IPC, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the time already undergone, noting the petitioner had served a substantial period and ten years had lapsed since the incident.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

Chamala Gowri Sankara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

Crl.R.C.No.1235 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 29.06.2006, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram in Crl.A.No.75 of 2005 confirming the conviction and the sentence recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 10.06.2005 in S.C.No.47 of 2004.

¶5

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

¶6

On 11.12.2003, the accused purchased one goat from P.W.1 for a sum of Rs.900/-. Later, when P.W.1 purchased one brandy bottle by giving Rs.100/- given by the accused, P.W.2, the salesman of brandy shop refused to receive the same on the ground that the said note is a fake currency. On enquiry, P.W.1 traced the accused at shandy of Makkuva village with the help of P.W.4 and handed over him to the police. On a report given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.43 of 2003 under Section 489(c) IPC was registered against the accused. During investigation, P.W.7 seized all the notes in the presence of mediators, sent them to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Hyderabad, which in turn sent a report under Ex.P3. On completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet.

¶7

3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked.

¶8

No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of defence.

¶9

4. The learned Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 489(c) IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Questioning the said conviction and the sentence, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.75 of 2005 and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present revision.

¶10

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

¶11

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is 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 conviction recorded by the Courts below, but however, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period and also the lapse of 10 years period from the date of

¶13

occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the Courts below is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶14

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

¶15

_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 8^th July, 2013 sj

Chamala Gowri Sankara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chamala Gowri Sankara Rao, 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

Koppaka Sanjeevarao (A1) Vs The State of A.P.

K.Sampathkumar, Vs The State ,through S.H.O P.S., Ramadugum

Gurram Koti Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Station House Officer

S.Venkatasudharshan Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Sesetti Ramachandra Rao (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Nagavasa Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of A.P.