Dismissed

Vankar Raj Karan v. the State of A.P. and Another

Telangana HC3 Feb 2023CRLRC/1907/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Telangana entertained a challenge to an appeal judgment confirming conviction under the Railways Act. Addressing admissibility of RPF confessions and factual discrepancies in recovery, the Court found no legal error below.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed without any modification of the impugned order.

Vankar Raj Karan Vs the State of A.P. and Another — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[^32s9 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVI SION CASE NO: 1907 OF 2009

¶7

criminal Revision case under section rg7 & 401 of cr.p.c against the Judgment dated 03.02.2009 made in c.c.No.220 of 2007 on the file of the court of the ll Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, secunderabad. preferred against the order passed in crl.A.No.97 of 2009 dated 23.09.2009 on the file of the court of the Principal Sessions Court, Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

!g1t<q1n9j .[.a1an,^{S/o Shamboji,.aged56 years,} Occ:^painting Contractor Rl/o 13-1-32, SVN Road, Mattewadd, Wirangat.

¶10

(The name of the Detitioner is _wrongly shown as V. Raj Kumar in C.C. Judgment of in Crl.A. Judgment)

¶11

...PETITIONER/A2

¶12

AND

¶13

'1. The State of A.P., Represented by the public.prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶14

The lnspector, Railwav protection Force, Kazipet, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counset for the Petitioner: SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI A. KRISHNAM RAJU

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1907 OF 2OO9

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This revision is filed bv A2 in C.C.No.220 of 2O07 to set aside the^judgment dated 23.09.2009 in Crl.A.No.97 of²⁰⁰⁹⁸ passed by the learned Principal Sessions Court, Warangal

¶24

The facts^jn brief are that the 2"d respondent/^Inspector, Railr,ay Protection Force, Kazipet, filed a complaint^againstthe petitioner/A2 and Ai alleging that on 28.O9.2006 at^{3.45 p.m.} while he^{r /as} on rounds, he noticed the^petitioner /^{A2 andA1} moving in the corridor of Kazipet General^{Bookingcounter.} When he apprehended the accused and searched^{them in the} presence of medrators, he found four^{general class} tickets^and cash of Rs.90O/- from A1 and on examination^{of the said tickets,} it was found that the date of^{journey was altered from} 2a.O9.2OO6 to 27.09.2006 which were meant for traveling^from Kazipet to Secunderabad. He also found two used railway^tickets of general class from the^petitioner lA2.^{He arrestedthe} petitioner/A2 ald A1 and seized the said tickets under cover of panchanama and recorded their confessional statements in the

¶25

)

¶26

presence of mediators. The accused confessed that they traveledin the train from Kazipet to Secunderabad and collected used tickets from the passengers at Secunderabad and again reached Kazipet and selling the used tickets. The 2"a respondent registered a case in crime No.2oo of 2006 for the offence under Sections 143 and 757 of the Railways Act (for short, ,,the Act") and sent the accused to judicial remand.

¶27

During the course of enquiry, the 2,.1 respondent found two used tickets from the petitioner/A2, which were containing verification marks by TTE and recorded the statements of p. Rama Chandra Rao, Booking Supervisor, D. Varadarajutu, Chief Booking Clerk and M. Somaiah, Chief Booking Clerk of Kazipet and the panch witnesses and after completion of enquiry, he filed final complaint. The trial Court after hearing both sides and perusing the material available before it found the petitioner/A2 guilty for the offence under Section 143 of the Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 1.000/_, in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner / A2 preferred crl.A.No.97 of 2oo9 on the file of the learned principal Sessions

¶28

Judge, Warangirl. Thc said appeal $,as allowed in part directing to adjust harll of the fine amount of Rs.i,0OO/- i.e., Rs.500/towards the fine arnount and the balance of Rs.5O0/- is ordered to be lefunded to the petitioner/A2 after expiry of the appeal by sending intimation to him.

¶29

Aggrieved by the saicl judgment, the petitioner/A2 preferred the present revision on the following grounds:

¶30

The Courts below ought to have seen that the entire evidence against the petitioner is based on Exs.Ps and P6, as they were issuecl on 28.09.2006 at 9.58 a.m. and 10.22 a.m respectively. The Courts below ought to have appreciated the lact that the petitioner could have collected the used tickets only after 2.OO p.m. at Secunderabad and if he traveled by a train proceeding to Kazipet, he would have reached Kazipet only after 4.45 p.m., but the petitioner was apprehended at 3.45 p.m., which is impossible. The lower appellate Court mistakenly observed that Rs.90O/- was recovered from the petitioner/A2 though the trial Court held that the sarre was recovered from Ai. The Court below failed to appreciate that the petitioner was

¶31

¶32

ialsely^{implicatedand therefore prayedthe Courtto allou'the} revrs10n.

¶33

Heard both^{sides and perused the record'} 6 Now, the^{point for determinationis whether the judgment} 1n Cr1.A.No.97 of^{2OO9can be set} dated 23.09'2009 Passed aside?

¶34

The trial Court^{has recordedconvictionon the strength of} confessional^{statementrecorded in the presence of an officer.} ThetrialCourtbasingonSection8(1)oftheRailwayProperties (Unauthorized^{Protection)Act (for short, "RPUPAct), the RPF} officers are not^{the ofhcerslike police officers therebythe} confession recorded^{by them is not inadmissiblein evidence '} The confession^{statement recorded by regular police is hit by} Section 25 of the^{IndianEvidence Act. Therefore, considering} Section 8(l)^{of the RPUP Act read with Section25 of the Indian} Evidence Act,^{the confessional statement recorded by the RPF} officers is admissible-

¶35

The confession statement^{of the revision petitioner/A2} would go to show that he has^{collected two used tickets from}

)

Kazipet to Secunderabad ancl traveled back to Kazipet from Secur-rderabai b-t' getting frec concession price ticket under handicapped quota and thev have changed the date of the ticket so that it can bc soid to rnnoccnt passengers for lesser^price and to make mone-y out of that. The defence of the^revision petitioner/A2 is that the railway officials have bore^grudge against him and they have imposed line^{on him, whichis under} contest before the Railway^{DivisionalManagerand therebysince} there are no merits in the^{case infavour of the railway} department a false case has^been foisted.^{This contentionof the} revision petitioner is not convincing. If at^{all any fine is imposed} on any passenger for any violation, the^{signature of such person} will be obtained. On the receipt^{filed by therevision} petitioner/A2, admittedly, there is no signature^{belonging to} him. However, there is a signature belonging^{to third party.} Therefore, the trial Court has^observed that^{even the receiptin} respect of payment of money^does not^{belongto the revision} petitioner, but belong to other person. Only^{ground that} sympathizes with the revision petitioner is that he is a handicapped person and e. en according to the railway protection force he has gone ali the way to Kazipet from

¶40

¶41

Hyderabad with an intention to sell two used tickets to earn

¶42

mone\r.

¶43

Having gone through the entire material before the Court, this revisional Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have not committed any jurisdictional, procedural or any legal error in disposing of the cases and therefore, the finding of the trial Court, which was confirmed by the appellate Court, cannot be interfered with.

¶44

In the result, the crimina.l revision case is dismissed

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

SD/.T.SRINIVAS DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The ll Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad.

¶51

The Principal Sesslons Court, Warangal.

¶52

One CC to Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI

¶53

One CC to Sri A. Krishnam Raju, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶55

Two CD Copies gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0310212023

ORDER

CRL.R.C.No.1 907 of²⁰⁰⁹

¶61

.s
*i
I^
;.. *$ ,E
i1- <br>, _r-
''-,
t

¶62

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ca6q @ g"e

Vankar Raj Karan v. the State of A.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vankar Raj Karan v. the State of A.P. and Another

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

Ramesh Dusangu , Ramesh Kachru, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Sri G.Srinivas, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and 2 Others

P. Dharmendar, Hyderabad. Vs the State of a.P., Hyderabad.

Varala Naga Raju, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Its Pp., and Another

Kattangu Murali Mohan Rao, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and 2 Others

Nalla Lakshmi Vs State of A.P. Rep.by Pp and 2 Others