Partly allowed

Mudavath Venkataiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Jul 2013CRLRC/1451/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the petitioner's knowledge of dacoity required for Section 412 IPC but established Section 411 IPC. The conviction was modified accordingly, and the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, while the fine remained unchanged.

What did the court decide?

Conviction modified from Section 412 IPC to Section 411 IPC; sentence of imprisonment reduced to period undergone; fine maintained.

Mudavath Venkataiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1451 OF 2006

¶2

DATED 4^th JULY, 2013.

¶3

BETWEEN :

¶4

M.Venkataiah

¶5

.. Petitioner-A.1

¶6

and

¶7

The State of A.P.

¶8

..Respondent

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1451 OF 2006

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Petitioner-A.1 filed this Criminal Revision Case by invoking the provision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.05.2006 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2001 by the V Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahabubnagar.

¶12

Initially, petitioner was prosecuted along with four others in S.C.No.509 of 1997 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool, wherein vide judgment dated 09.10.2001 they were convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/each for the said offence while they were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. Challenging the same, all the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2001.

¶13

While dismissing the said appeal, the learned Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, present revision has been preferred.

¶14

Heard and perused the entire material on record.

¶15

Case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.05.1994 at about 8.30 p.m. when PWs 1 and 2 were proceeding to Nagarkurnool from Mahabubnagar on motor cycle, on the way when they reached Manganoor Village accused attacked them, assaulted PWs 1 and 2 and also P.W.6 who was also proceeding on another vehicle, snatched away gold ornaments from their person and decamped with booty. Hence, the case.

¶16

Though charge sheet was filed by the investigation agency for an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, the learned trial Judge framed charges under Sections 395, 397 and 412 IPC and after due trial found the accused guilty only for the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC and the same was also confirmed in appeal as stated above. Hence, the present revision by A.1.

¶17

Section 412 IPC runs as follows:

¶18

412. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity:- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶19

In this case, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the accused was in possession of the said property knowing fully well that the said property was obtained by the person concerned by way of dacoity or dishonestly received from a person belonging to gang of dacoits. Hence, the offence under Section 412 IPC is not made out against the revision petitioner. However, from the evidence on record the Prosecution is able to prove the ingredients of Section 411 IPC

¶20

against the revision petitioner. Therefore, the conviction rendered by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is hereby modified to one under Section 411 IPC.

¶21

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner had suffered substantial period of imprisonment and he is the only breadwinner of his family and thus prayed to show some leniency in imposition of sentence of imprisonment.

¶22

Considering the said submissions, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner is hereby reduced to that of the period already undergone by him in prison. However, the fine amount imposed on the revision petitioner is not interfered with.

¶23

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date : 04.07.2013 sur

Mudavath Venkataiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudavath Venkataiah, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejavath Nagamani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Padmanabha Naidu Vs State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

Vinod Yadhav, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kodi Mallaiah , Prem, Vs State of A.P.

Mudavath Bhasya , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd.Anwar Ali, Vs The State of A.P.