Partly allowed

Puli Anjaneyulu, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC11 Jul 2023CRLRC/1658/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the conviction under IPC 420 but acknowledged 17 years of delay in trial. After noting the petitioner had already undergone 12 days of remand, the Court reduced the remaining sentence to zero, effectively acquitting the petitioner on the basis of time lapsed, while dismissing the revision in other aspects.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded by the appellate court was reduced to the period already undergone by the accused (12 days).

Puli Anjaneyulu, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 05.10.2009 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.22BB of 2009 in Crl.R.C.No.^.1658 of 2009.

¶2

[^32SS ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1658 OF 2009

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment, Sentence and conviction dated 29.09.2009 passed in Crl.A.No. 11 of 2009 on the file of the lll Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar confirming the Judgment dated 19.01 .2009 passed in C.C.No. 231 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad, Karimnagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Puli Anjaneyulu, S/o. Chinna Mallaiah, Age: 43 years, Caste: Goud, R/o. Garrepalli Village of Sultnabad Mandal, Karimangar District.

¶11

...PETITIONERYAPPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P., through rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri PALLE SRIHARINATH

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : M/S. VIZARATH ALl, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

HONO JRABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENU(}OP.A.L

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 165tr OF 2oO9'

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This crimirral revision case is Iiled seeking to set eside the judgment, sente:rce and conviction passed l>y the le.rned III Additional Sessic ns Judge at Karimnagar in Crl.A.No. I 1 of 2OO9, dated, 29.O9.2009 conhrming the^judgment of the Judi:irrl l{agistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad, Karimnagar l)istri<:t passed in C.C.No.231 of 2O06, dated 19.O1.2009 convicting th: petitioner to undergo Rigorou; Imprisonment for one year and to Jray 2 line of Rs.5000/- in defi,ult to undergo Rigorous Imprisonmert lor 6 months for offence under Section 42O of IPC., and acquit hiro of :he above charges.

¶23

Learned co unsel for the petitioner submit:; that the petitioner has underwent in the judicial remand fr,>m tl4 .08.2006 to 2A.Oa.2OO6, ther,:after the appellate Court had passed a jucigment on 29.O9.2OO9 by d.smissing the appeal, confirming the jrrdgment, the conviction and s(ntence, passed and awarded to rhe agrpellant, by the Judicial Magistr.rte of First Class, Sulthanabad in C.C.lt{o.23 I of 20O6, dated 19. )1 .2OO9, on 29.O9.2OO9, again he r,,as taken into custody and kr pt in to judicial remand tilt 06. LA .2C09. On 05.10.2009, this Court has granted Bail to the pe1.it on,rr herein. Therefore, the jurlicial remand underwent by the petiti rner s 12 days and the learned appellate Court has appropriately c,tnf rmed^the

¶24

I (

¶25

¶26

order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sulthanabad. After thorough trial and while appreciating the evidence on record, the learned appellate Court has however, reduced the sentence from one (01) year to six (06) months.

¶27

In view of the submissions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned appellate Court and therefore, it is confirmed however, having regard to the Judicial remand underwent by the petitioner for a period of 12 days, during the course of trial and the said FIR was filed on 22.08.2006 and till now 17 years have been elapsed and the petitioner must have undergone great agony and must have repented to have involved in the said crime. In view of the above, the period of sentence imposed by the appellate Court upon the petitioner is reduced to that of the period to which the petitioner has already undergone. Except the above modification, the criminal revision case is dismissed in all other aspects.

¶28

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall also stand closed.

¶29

SdIM.RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

i/TRUE^COPY//

To,

SECTION^OFFICER

The lll^{Additional SessionsJudge' Karimnangar'} Z. f ne^{JuOlclal Magistrate of First blass'Sulthanabad'.Karimnagar'} -tne

¶35

i. ii " strt."^{Hou"se Officer, Sulthanabad Police Station' Karimnagar'} +. Supetintendent,^{District Jail'Karimnagar'} ; il;ei; iii^{pnr-lesRIHARINATH' Advocate[oPUC]} 6. Two CCs^{to the p,uf i" pr.ot"c'iot'HighCourt foriheState of Telangana at} HYderabad'^(OUT)

¶36

Two^{CD CoPies}

Njb

I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 1107'2023

--1,
i '.: YlL STAT€
,i \i <br>4
C *Ptm
1l
J
*r-
:-.-'".-

¶42

ORDER

¶43

CRLRC.No.I€58 of 2009

¶44

DISMISSING THE CRLRC.

¶45

D
fnk
?l 4,,

Puli Anjaneyulu, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puli Anjaneyulu, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

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

Smt. Paradapallyl Deepika, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Daljith Singh Vs the State of Telangana and Another

P.Srinivas Vs Yadamma and 2 Others

Sakamuri Venu and Another Vs the State of Telangana

Ch.Prasad Rao Vs Osmania University

Dudem Rathamma, Karimnagar., Vs Dudem Narsiah, Karimnagar Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.