Partly allowed

D.Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhara Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Feb 2014CRLRC/1197/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against confirmation of conviction for offences under A.P. Gaming Act. Petitioner claimed procedural lapse and denied ownership of premises. Court dismissed ground of error, held procedure followed, and modified sentence to time already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of one month imprisonment modified to period already undergone; fine confirmed.

D.Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhara Pradesh — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1197 OF 2007 Dated 26-2-2014

Between:

D.Satyanarayana.

..Petitioner.

And: The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, . Hyderabad

¶6

…Respondent.

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1197 OF 2007 ORDER:

¶8

This revision is against order dated 9-7-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.398 of 2006 on the file of Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad whereunder judgment dated 8-11-2006 in C.C.No.1216 of 2004 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, is confirmed.

¶9

2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:

¶10

Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakalaguda filed charge sheet against revision petiotner and four others alleging that on 3-10-2004 when Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakalaguda with staff and mediators raided premises No.12-7-164, Mettuguda found A.2 to A.5 playing cards a game of chance and A.1 i.e., revision petitioner herein being owner of house bearing No.12-7164, entertained the event of gambling by collecting kit amount and thereby, revision petitioner is liable for

¶11

punishment under Section 3 of Gaming Act and the other accused are liable for punishment for the offence under Section 4 of Gaming Act. When the accused including revision petitioner admitted guilt of the offence, on their admission learned Magistrate convicted all the accused. Revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo one month imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- whereas other accused 2 to 5 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/each. Aggrieved by the sentence, A.1 preferred appeal to the court of Session and VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal confirming conviction and sentence of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.

¶12

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioner that procedure was not followed as laid down in Cr.P.C. and no opportunity was given to revision petitioner to put forth his plea. It is further contended that both the courts ought to have acquitted revision petitioner for the offence under Section 3 of A.P.Gaming Act as he is not the owner of said premises and he is only a tenant.

¶13

4. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?

¶14

5. POINT:

¶15

One of the contentions of the revision petitioner is that trial court has not followed procedure under Cr.P.C. and did not give opportunity to the revision petitioner to put forth his plea. But the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that after appearance of the revision petitioner and other accused, all of them were supplied with prosecution documents, thereafter, they were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for which revision petitioner and other accused have pleaded guilty.

¶16

6. As seen from the record, the revision petitioner

¶17

and other accused first appeared before the court in the month of March, 2006 and they were examined on 8-112006. Copies of the prosecution documents were supplied to the revision petitioner and other accused and only after furnishing copies of documents, they were examined. The trial court has rightly followed the procedure and only after satisfying that plea of the accused is free and voluntary, they were convicted. No appeal is maintainable in respect of conviction, when accused pleads guilty of the offence, except to the extent of legality of the sentence. Trial court has not committed any error in imposing sentence of one month and Rs.500/fine which is within the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 3 of A.P.Gaming Act. Appellate court also rightly dismissed the appeal considering the plea of the accused.

¶18

7. The offence was in October, 2004 and already more than nine years time is passed in between the date of conviction and disposal of this revision. Considering the gravity of offence and age of revision petitioner and facts of the case into consideration, I feel that the period already undergone can be treated as punishment besides fine amount already paid.

¶19

8. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed modifying the sentence of one month to the period already undergone while confirming the fine amount.

¶20

9. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶21

_______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI

¶22

KUMAR

¶23

Dated 26-2-2014. Dvs.

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶25

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1197 OF 2007 Dated 26-2-2014

¶26

Dvs

D.Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhara Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhara Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bnada Buchaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Juvvala Satya Appa Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

N. R. Abraham, Vs Smt. Mercy Beena

Shaheen Hussain Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Challa Durga Prasad, Vs K.Akhil

Kakani Indiramma, Vs Kakani Bhaskar