Partly allowed

A.Chandrasekhar , Shekar, Ramnagar, Hyderabad v. the State of A.P. Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Hyd and Anr.

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023CRLRC/1012/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision upon appeal against conviction for Section 411 IPC theft, the High Court upheld the conviction but exercised leniency to quash the entire remaining imprisonment term, allowing only the deprivation of the hard one month period already served, while retaining the court fine and cancelling bail.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine remains; bail cancelled.

A.Chandrasekhar , Shekar, Ramnagar, Hyderabad Vs the… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail^{by the} order of the High Court dated 29.04.2011 in Crl.RC.lV P.No. 1491 of 20'l.1ⁱⁿ Crl.R.C.No. 1012 of 2011.

¶2

[^32se l

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1012OF 20'l'l

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397⁽¹⁾ R/w^{40'1of Cr.P.C.,aggrieved} by the Judgment dated^{'19.04.2011passed in} Crl^{A.No. 272 of 2010 on the file of the} MSH, Hyderabad confirming the Judgment dated 16.07.2010^{passedin C.C.No. 300} of 2008 on the file of the XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate,Hyderabad.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

A.Chandrasekhar @ Shekar, S/o late A.Bala Raju, Age: 30^{years, R/o H.No.1-} 7 -1 002138, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.

¶11

...REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P., Represented by its Public^{Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra} Pradesh, Hyderabad. Through the Sub-lnspector of Police,^Musheerabad P.S., Hyderabad.

¶14

Syed Zahaib Mohammed, Sio. Syed Mohammed,^{Age:21 years, Occ:} Siudent Rr/o. H.No. 1-7-631121118, Second Floor, Flat^{No. 202, Gemini} Colony, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A. SAMEER KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri VIZARATH ALl, ASSISTANT^PUBLIG

¶18

PROSECUTOR

¶19

Counsel for Respondent No.2 : None appeared

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1012 OF 2011

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner /accused^{under Sections 397 (1) read} with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') aggrieved by the Judgment dated 19.04.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.272 of 2010 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short Appellate Court') confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 16.O7.2OlO passed in C.C.No.3OO of 20O8 on the file of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court').

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent and perused the record.

¶26

The main accusation against the petitioner is that on 29.O9.2OO7 at about 21OO hours Mr. Syed Zohatb MohammedPWI parked his Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No. AP 9 BK 4734 near a temple in Gemini Colony, and at about 23OO hours

¶27

)

¶28

he found his vehicle was missing. Basing upon complaint, Police registered a crime and took up investigation.

¶29

The trial Court upon considering the entire material on record in the form of oral and documentary evidence i.e., PW1 to PW3 and Exs.Pl to P3 and MO. 1 and after hearing both sides, found the petitioner/ accused guilty for the oflence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to a pay a fine of Rs.1OO/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2O days. The Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 19.04.2011^passed in Criminal Appeal No.272 of 2010 confirmed the Conviction and Sentence passed by the trial Court against the petitioner

¶30

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Case alleging that the prosecution case lacks evidence and that the accused was falsely implicated the above crime and that there are several investigation lapses and the seizure of vehicle from the petitioner is not proved and prayed to allow this Crimina-l Revision Case

¶31

¶32

On the other hand, the learned Assistant pubtic Prosecutor for the State submitted that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 4 I I of IpC and the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of IpC and that there is no illegality or irregularity in the hndings given by the Courts below and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case as there are no merits.

¶33

07 . As seen from the Judgments of the trial Court and Appellate Court, PWI is the complainant, pW2 is the panch witness and PW3 is the Investigating Officer. pWl stated that his Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No. Ap 9 BK 4234 was parked near a temple in Gemini Colony, later he found his vehicle was missing and he lodged a complaint with police, pW2 was the panch witness before whom the petitioner confessed to have committed the offence and the evidence of pW3 is with regard to the investigation. The evidence of pWl and pW2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW3 in all respects. It is also stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Moreover, the accused never claimed himself as the owner of the bike and failed to give any prop-er respuRse with regard to the bike which is in his

¶34

¶35

possession. During the course of cross-examination of the above witnesses on behalf of the petitioner did not gain any support to defeat the case of the prosecution

¶36

In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner the above said act of the petitioner clearly attracted the ingredients of Section 411 of IPC and accordingly, both the Courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner. The findings of both the Courts below are made on careful and meticulous scrutiny of the entire material available on record and the same does not require any interference by this Court as there is no illegality or irregularity in the said findings.

¶37

So far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is concerned, since from the date of inception of litigation, the petitioner/ accused is roaming around the Courts by facing trauma and mental agony and in that view of the matter, this Court takes a lenient view by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that of period already undergone by the petitioner/ accused. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court remains unaltered.

¶38

¶39

Accordingly, except the above modification in respect of period of sentence of imprisonment, this Criminal Revision case in all other aspects is dismissed. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand cancelled.

¶40

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.

¶41

Sd/- M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

/ITRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

The XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at^Hyderabad.

¶46

The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶47

The Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station,^Hyderabad.

¶48

The Superintendent, District Jail, Chanchalguda Jail,^Hyderabad

¶49

One CC to Sri A. SAMEER KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC]

¶50

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State^{of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶51

Two CD Copies

Njb

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912023

ORDER

STATE oF
1
v
o
.L,
qlo
t? [tt N8
L)
+
j< l)
*r'

¶59

CRLRC.No.1012 ot 2011

¶60

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶61

<br>1,o))

A.Chandrasekhar , Shekar, Ramnagar, Hyderabad v. the State of A.P. Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Hyd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Chandrasekhar , Shekar, Ramnagar, Hyderabad v. the State of A.P. Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Hyd and Anr.

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

Ambati Venkateshwar Reddy, Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Gundelly Mallesh Vs the State of A.P

Madini Philips , Philip Vs the State of A.P.

Banoth Bhadru Naik Vs Dr.Budha Prakash Jyothi

P.Prabhaker Rao, Medak Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Chintala Arjun Kumar , Arjun, Warangal Vs State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., High Court