Partly allowed

G.Prabhakar, v. the State of Ap Rpe by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC17 Feb 2023CRLRC/1696/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court revision case addressed a conviction for theft via confession and recovery of stolen money. The court upheld the conviction but intervened on sentencing grounds due to the passage of time and the petitioner's age, reducing the term from one year to six months.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Disposed; Sentence of one year reduced to six months; period undergone set off.

G.Prabhakar, Vs the State of Ap Rpe by Its Pp Hyd. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^325s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1696 0F 2009

¶7

criminal Revision case under sections 397 and 401 of cr.p.c against the Judgment dated 2gl9l2oog made in cRLA.No. 288 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad preferred against the order passed in cc.No.972 0f 2007 dated 13t812008 0n the fite of the court of the I Addt. chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

G.Prabhakar, S/o late G.Bala yesu, Car Driver, Rl/o plol No.222, Shaktinagar, Mallapur, Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana rep. by its SHO, Saifabad pS., Hyderabad, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.p., at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p.VEERA REDDy

¶15

Counsel for the Sole Respondent: pUBLtC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN}

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISI^{ON CASE No.1696of2OO9}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The accused in^{C.C.No.972 of2OO7 whose} Cr1.A.No.288 of 2008^{was dismissedon 29'09'2009has} preferred this revision^{challenging the concurrentfindings} of the trial Court^{and the appellateCourt finding him guilty} of the offence under^{Section 381 IPC.}

¶21

The facts in brief^{are as under:}

¶22

a. The petitioner is working^{as a Car Driver in Indo} Saudi Services^{(Travels), Adarshnagar,Hyderabad'PW'1} lodged a complaint^{before the police on l2'L1'2OO7alleging} that on the intervening^{night of llll2'll'20}7} they lost cash of Rs.3.28 lakhs^{in their office.On the following day,} they came to offrce^{and realized that somebodyhas entered} into office and committed^{theft. On the strength of the} complaint, police have^{registereda case in Crime No 72O of} 2OO7. During the course^{of investigation,policehave} apprehended the^{petitioneron 13.ll.2OO7 at 6'30 p'm',he} was brought to the^{police station in the presence of PW'4}

€''

and other mediator, where the^petitioner has^{confessed the} offence and at his instance art amount of Rs.3.13 lakhs was seized from his house under cover of^{confession and} sezure panchanama. On completion of^{investigation,} charge sheet is filed

¶27

b. During the course of trial, the complainart^was examined as PW.1, the cashier^of the^{officewas examined} as PW.2, mediator of scene of^{offence was examined as} PW.3, mediator of confessional^{seizure panchanamawas} examined as PW.4 and investigating^{officer was examined} as PW.S. Apart from oral evidence,^{the prosecution has} also relied upon Exs.Pl to PW.^{1 1} and^{also cash of Rs.3'13} lakhs, which was deposited in^the Court under^MO.1.On completion of trial, the trial Court^has found^{the petitioner} guilty of the offence under Section 381^{read with 457 IPC} and sentenced him to undergo^rigorous imprisonment^{for a} period of three years and to pay fine of^Rs. 1,000/-,ⁱⁿ default of payment of fine, he shall^{undergosimple} imprisonment for a period of three months.^{The remand} period shall also set off under Section 428^Cr.P.C..

¶28

¶29

Questioning the^judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner has preferred Crl.A.No.288 of 2008 and on hearing both sides, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge has dismissed the said appeal by way of judgment dated 29.O9.2009.

¶30

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision on the following grounds:

¶31

i) The Courrs below failed to consider that pws.1 to 4 are the employees of the Indo-Soudi Services Travels Private limited and that they have created a plot to fix the petitioner in the case and ought not to have believed the evidence of PWs. I to 4 and con,ricted the petitioner, as it suffers from inconsistencies and contradictions.

¶32

ii) The Courts below failed to see that no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove their case and as such it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Courts below ought to have considered that the prosecution has registered a case against an unknown offeqder and later developed a story to connect the accused

¶33

¶34

to the case and^{later at the time of evrdence broughtup} another new^{story to get conviction againstthe accused'}

¶35

iii) The Courts below^{ought to have consideredthat the} prosecution failed to^{mention the actual denominationof} notes in the^{seizure panchanamaandhence, the} prosecution failed to^{prove any recovery either fromthe} possession of the^{accusedor at his instance and that the} prosecution failed to^{bringany evidence from PW'4 that a} particular denomination^{of notes were seized from the} possession of the accused'

¶36

irr) The Courts^{below failed to consider that PW ' 5 has} failed to observe^{in the panchanamathat there wereany} damage to the doors^{of the Manager's room or Accounts} Chamber through^{which the offender gained entry in the} iooms to commit^{the offence.The Courtsbelowdid not} give any importance^{to thenon-examinationof} independent^{witnesseswhich is necessaryto prove the} offence under^{Section380, 381 and 457 IPC'}

¶37

¶38

v) The erzidence of^pWs. I and 2 is suspicious and ,,vith the help of PWs.3 and 4 they created this false case against the peritioner. The Courts below failed to apply p.O. Act ro the petitioner and therefore, prayed the Court to allow the revlslon

¶39

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶40

Norv, the point for determination is whether the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court shall be set aside?

¶41

The allegation leveled against the petitioner is that he being the driver working in the Indo Saudi Services has committed theft of Rs.3.28 lakhs on the intervening night of 1l-12.ll.2OO7. pW. I has kept the money in the locker of the office and kept the keys in a draw of one of the tables of their oflice and closed the ollice and left to home. On the following day when they opened the office they realized that somebody meddled with the money where the keys were kept. On further enquiry, tJley realized that they lost Rs.3.28 lakhs. Accordingly, a complaint under Ex.pl is

¶42

¶43

¶44

lilcd bcfore the^{police. Apart from PWs.1 and 2 no other} person, including the^accused /^{petitioner, has claimedthe} money under MO.1.^{Therefore, there is no dispute that} MO.1 money was^{belonging to PWs.1 ald 2 artd} '"r'as^{lost on} the intervening night of^{1 1 - 12. 1 | .2OO7.}

¶45

7 . There are no eye^{witnesses to the allegedoffence'} There is no other scientific^{method used to fastenthe} criminal liability on^{the petitionerto the alleged theft of} money. There were no^{C.C. T.V. camerasor arty other} devices through which^{itcan be establishedthat the} petitioner was the person,^{who has committedthe theft of} money from their office.^{However, when the petitionerwas} apprehended on 13.ll.2OO7^{near NTR Gardens,Necklace} Road by the^{police, the petitioner stated to have confessed} that he has committed^{the theft in the office of PWs land} 2. Accordingly, the^{petitioner was taken to police station} where PW.4/mediator and^{another were summoned and in} their presence in the^{enquiry made by PW'4, the petitioner} has stated to have confessed^{that he has committedthe} offence. Subsequent to making^{of the confession, the}

¶46

¶47

petitioner has stated that if the police, including pW.4, the mediator, accompany him to his house, he would produce the rest of the money ald accordingly he shown the money in his house, which was committed theft by him. police have recovered the sarne under cover of confession_cumrecovery panchanama under Ex.p7. The mediator/pW.4, who has deposed, a.lso identified his signature on the panchanama as Ex.Pl0. The evidence of pWs.4 and 5 and the contents of the seizure and enquiry panchanama are corroborated in respect of the fact that the petitioner has lound in possession of Rs.3.l3 lakhs. The evidence of other witnesses is not so relevant connecting the petitioner to that of the property/MO.l, which was lost in the ofhce of PWs. i and 2.

¶48

Section 3Bl IPC speaks about the situation where a clerk commits theft of money from their own ofhce, though there were no eye witnesses to depose that they have seen the petitioner while committing theft, but the confessional statement coupled with recovery of money from the house of the petitioner wouid disclose that the petitioner being

¶49

¶50

the employee^{working in the office of PWs land 2 has} comrnitted^{the theft of moneyand confessedthe offence'}

¶51

g . Perused the^{judgments of the trial Court and the} appellate Court.^{Both the Courts after analyzingthe entire} evidence, both^{oral and documentary indetail' have} concluded that^{MO'l belongs to PWs'larrd 2' who have} filed tl-re compiaint^{before the police' and also further} concluded^{that MO.1/moneywas found in the house of the} petitioner and the^{same was recovered at the instanceof} under the^{cover of seizure and recovery} the petitioner Once the stolen^{propertywas recoveredfrom} panchanama. the house of^{the petitioner and when the said amount} belongs to^{PWs.1 and 2 in whose office the petitionerwas} working and^{therebyhas observed' by the appellate Court} that the^{petitionercan be found guilty for the offence under} Section 381^IPC.

¶52

Originally,^{the trial Court has found the petitioner} guilty under three^{offencesi'e', Section457'38O and 381} IPC. However,^{the appellateCourt has rightly observed} that the hnding^{of the trial Court that the petitionerwas}

¶53

¶54

I I

¶55

guilty of both the offences erroneous and thereby the finding ol the appellate Court that the petitioner is guilty of the under Section 38 1 IPC still sustain. In respect of quantum of sentence, the trial Court has sentenced the petitioner for a period of three years, whereas the appellate Court has modified the same to one year.

¶56

This offence has taken place in the year 2OO7 and as of now 16 years have been lapsed. The petitioner must have undergone the trauma and agony since 2OO7 with a stigma that he was found guilty for the offence under Sections 457 and 381 IPC in the property offence with an allegation that he has committed theft of money in the office where he was working.

¶57

Considering the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner is aged about 44 years as on date and that he is the first offender, as no criminal case is found against him, this revisiona-l Court is of the opinion that the sentence can be reduced lrom one year to six months

¶58

¶59

¶60

In the result, the criminal revision case is disposecl of and the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed by the appellate Court in Cr1.A.No.288 of 2008 is reduced ro six months and the period the petitioner has undergone is set off.

¶61

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶62

SD/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶63

SECTION OFFICER

¶64

To, 1 The Metrooolitan Sessions^{Judge, Hyderabad} 2 The lAddl. Chief^{Metropolitan lvlagistrate, Hyderabad} 3 The SHO, Saifabad^{P.S., Hyderabad} 4 i*o cciio in.^{Public Pios-ecutor, High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶65

5 oire cc to SRI P.VEERA^{REDDY Advocate} [oPUC] 6 Two CD Copies

¶66

KKS Dsts

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710212023

ORDER

CRLRG.No.1696 of 2009

¶71

,/',
.a 1"
:,'''.
2 [ [Pfr 2[23
,,|
'<br>.i

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC

¶73

to
-*Ird,t-'

G.Prabhakar, v. the State of Ap Rpe by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Prabhakar, v. the State of Ap Rpe by Its Pp Hyd.

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

Mohammed Ilyas, Vs Smt. Firdous Fatima and 2 Others

Mohd. Abdul Raheem, and Another, Vs Mohd. Rasheed and Another

Armoor Pharmaceatical Ltd., and Another, Vs Expert Detectives and Secrity Services, and Another

Syed Wajid Ali, Vs Sana Begum and Another

Dildar Khan, Vs Smt. Sahera Babu and 4 Others

K.v.Subba Rao Vs the State of a.P., Thru CBI