Partly allowed

M. Rahmathullah or Babu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023CRLRC/1199/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court, in three criminal revision cases, partly allowed the revisions. The court reduced the sentence of imprisonment for accused persons convicted of possessing antiquities without a license to the period already undergone, as the offence involved possession rather than theft.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment of the accused (A1 to A3) reduced to the period already undergone. Future component remains unchanged.

M. Rahmathullah or Babu Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION cAs E Nos:1158, 11 99 and1217 OF²⁰¹⁸

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:^{11 58 0F 2018}

¶8

Revision filed under sections 397 and^{401 of criminalProcedurecode against} the Judgment dated 20.03.2017^{passed in} c.c^{No.940 of 2012 on the file of the court} of the xlv Additional chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Hyderabad.,prefened againstthe} Order dated 2344'211a,in Criminal^{AppealNo. 382 of 2017} '^{on the file of the} Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶9

)

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mohd. Saleem, S/o. MOhd.^{Azeemuddin,Occ. Cook,R/o. H.No 6-3-1240i23,M S} Maqtha, Khaiiatabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

... Petitioner/AppellanUAccused^No.2.

¶13

AND

¶14

The Stage of Telangana,^ReP.bY its Public Prosecutor, High Court^{at Hyderabadfor the} State of Telangana^{and the State} ofAndhra Pradesh. Through^{P.S. Panjagutta,} Hyderabad

¶15

... RespondenURespondent

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. C VIJAYA LAXMI}

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent:^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)}

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISIO { CASE NO: 1199 OF 2018

¶19

Revision filed rnder Sections 397 and 401 of Cnnrinal Frc,:edure Code against the Judgment ciat€,d i0 03.2017 passed in C.C No 940 o, 2012 on the file of the Court of the XIV Addrtronal 3 rief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderrabad. 3relerred against^the Order dated 23-04- l0 l8 in Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 20l|1 ort the^file of^the l/etropolitan Serssion,; .ludge, Hyderabad.

¶20

Between

¶21

M Rahmathullah @r B abu, S/o Late H M Quadrat ali, R/o 12.'16-), lndira Colony, Khairtabad. Hyrjerirb,, d

¶22

.A )t,?lla nuAccused No.1.

¶23

AND

¶24

State of Telangan I^.ep by its PP, High Court at Hyderabad^:or th: State of Telangana and trr,, S;tate of Andhra Pradesh

¶25

Rer;pon dent/C omplaina nt

¶26

CounSBl for the Peti ioner: Sri. Vikas Joshi

¶27

Counsel for the Res )ondent: The Public Prosecutor ('l'G)

¶28

CRIMINAL REVISIOI^(:ASE NO: 1217 OF 2018

¶29

Revisron file,l r 1(ier Sections 397 and 401 of Crim nal^Pro(. edUTe Code against the Judgment dated ! l) )3 2017^passed in C.C.No.940 of 2012. tn^ther file^{of the Court} of the XIV Addition.?l lhief l/etropolitan Magistrate, Hyde-abad. 1-^refr.'rred against^the Order dated 2:-otl-).)18,in Cnminal Appeal No. 382 d 2017 on^{the file of the} Metropolitan Sessionl J rdge, Hyderabad.

¶30

Between.

¶31

S. MAdhu Sekhar @ V;:msi S/o Narayana, aged 26^years, C)(c Business,^{R/o 6-1-} 361/25, Backside L br rn,. Khairatabad, Hyderabad

¶32

.. At p,,'llarrUAccused No.3.

¶33

AND

¶34

State of Telangani rep by its Public Prosecutor , High Court^{al Hy,lerabadfor the} State of Telanganz a1d Andhra Pradesh

¶35

... Resoc ndontlcom plainant.

¶36

Counsel for the Petil oner: Sri. Vikas Joshi

¶37

Counsel for the Resl otrdents: The Public Prosecutor^(TG)

¶38

The Court made the I )llowing: COMMON ORDER

¶39

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶40

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NoS. 1158 1199 and L2l7 OF 2OLA COMMON ORDER:

¶41

These Criminal Revision Cases are frled by the petitioners/ appellants/A 1 to A3 questioning the Judgment passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.3g2/2012, dated 23.O4.2018, conhrming the Judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.940/2012 dated 20.O3.2017 for the offence under Sections 42O of the Indian Penal Code arld Section 25 of the Antiquities Art and Treasuries Act (/or sLnrt Antiquities Act).

¶42

Since the petitioners in all these crirninal revision cases are accused (Al to A3) in a same crime ald filed independent petitions, all are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶43

Heard. Perused record

¶44

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were in possession of two Conch Shells. On information, the police seized the Conch Shells and sent them for the purpose of analyzing whether the Conch Shells are Antiques. Having received Ex. p4opinion from the concerned, the Police hled charge sheet. The seizure was believed by both the Courts below and found that the petitioners were in possession of Antiques in violation of Section 25

¶45

t , I I

¶46

¶47

t \

¶48

of the A.tiqlt. l.i.s Act. License is required to ]t.l;s,:ss Ant iques in accordan,:e^''r'i h the said act. Since the petitirners ltled to produce any licen,:e to possess the Antiques, both tlte Collr.ts belou, found that the It,osilo isrolt of the ar-rtiqr-res is punish.rble.

¶49

It is nor he case that the petitioners h.rvr: c tr:tmitted theft of the antiques. I [r;wever, thev have purchased it u,irh a tbnd hope to re-sell at a h g rer pnce. The offence under St:r: _iort 25 of the Antiqurties Ar:t rs. punishable up to 6 months or firri,. Since there is no allegation I i theft ald the case is onll, posse,s sron of Antiques without 'eLlid li --r. nce, this Courl deems it appropri tt : t. reduce the sentence c,f irnl ,risonment to the period already rrn<le rgone.

¶50

Accordinl [1,, these Criminal Revision Cases are, partly allowed reducing the s( r'rlence of imprisonment of the accus(,cl (A1 to 43) to the periorl aJ: e:rdy undergone. However, the fu re component remains unaltt: e,l

¶51

Misct:11ar-:, o rs ayrplications, if any p:ndir g. shall stand

¶52

closed

¶53

$id/. B. SATYAVATHI DI=PI,'TY REGISTRAR r-r(" ---_!t,' /iTRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The XIV .Adciiti,^,n rl Chief f,4etropolitan l/agistrate^{C()urt, H} /cleral)ad. (n/i1h Recrords)

¶58

2 The Metropotil. n Sessions J udge.^{H yderabad.} One CC'o :iri C V,jaya Laxmt^Advocate IOPUC] 4 One CC.o lin Vrkas Joshi,^Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to F'^rb ic Prosecutor, High Cburt^{of Telan} lana,^C)UTl b Two CD^ilopioi J gk

0 I

I i I I : I

HIGH COURT

DATED:'16/06/2023

COMMON ORDER

CRLRC.NoS.1158, ' 199 and 1217 of 2018

¶66

/a -- ,{L iIAT
y' c;(
6
i. /; 7 I Jlr 7m >l
+.
,.1,
'.
::-1,_ \l! ..,.

¶67

CRIMINAL REV|S|O,l^TIASES ARE PARTLY ALI-C WED.

¶68

4t-({P

M. Rahmathullah or Babu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Rahmathullah or Babu v. State of Telangana

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

The State of Telangana Vs Booruga Raju , Yohan Raju

Mohd. Imam, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Vasam Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana

S. Madhu Sekhar , Vamsi Vs The State of Telangana

K. Yasoda Vs The State of Telangana

K.Laxminarayana Gupta Vs the State of Telangana