Partly allowed

Sri G.Yesupadam v. the State of Ap., Rep.by Its P.P and Anohters

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023CRLRC/2391/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court modified the appellate court's sentence. While affirming the conviction for cheating and intimidation committed over a land sale agreement, the court reduced the imprisonment term to the period the appellant had already served.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; conviction confirmed.

Sri G.Yesupadam Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Its P.P and… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP: The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to^{be released on bail by the} order of the High Court dated 30 11.2011 in Cd.M.P.No. 3605 of 2011 in^Crl.R.C No. 2391 of 2011 .

¶2

[^32ee ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2391 OF 20'11

¶8

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 28-11-2011 made in CrlA.No.497l2O1O on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge ,Hyderabad Preferred against the Order^passed in C.C. No. 1312 of 2007 dated 03.11.2010, on the file of the Court of the Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

SRI G.YESUPADAM, S/o G.Chandraiah, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o^Pulimamidi Village, Kandukur Mandal, R.R.District.

¶11

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED.2

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of AP., rep. By Public Prosecutor High court of AP,^Hyderabad.

¶14

D.Sadanand, S/o Venkataiah, Occ: Business^Rl/o Sultanshahi,^{Old city,} Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. B. D. RA"JU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI J. RAMMOHAN RAO

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CAS E^{No.2391 of 2011}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present criminal revision case is filed^{aggrieved by} the^judgment passed in Criminal^{Appeal No.497 of 2010} dated 28.11.2011 on the lile of^{the MetropolitanSessions} Judge, Hyderabad.

¶24

A charge sheet came to be filed^against the^petitioner herein for the offences punishable under^{Sections323, 107,} 447,42O and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1908^(l.P.C.) and^he was tried for the aforesaid offences. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.O4.2006, complainant entered into agreement of sale with A. 1 in respect of Ac. 1-28 gts situated at Akanapally village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga^Reddy District and at the time of execution of agreement complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,OO,OOO/- to A. I in the presence of A.2. The accused also stated to the complainant that there were few old disputes about the said land and they would settle it. Thereafter, one Mr.B.Shankar interfered in the said transaction and complainant approached A. I for settlement but A. 1 did not^{accedeto the same}

¶25

¶26

While things stood thus, on 15.07.2007 at 11.00 AM both the accused came to the residence of complainant and when the complainant asked the accused. to return the money, A. 1 and A.2 beat the complainant, destroyed the furniture and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. After completion of the investigation, the police hled charge sheet lr,hich was taken on file as C.C.No.I3I2 of 2OO7

¶27

After taking cognizance of the case, complying with the mandatory provisions and on appearance of the accused, the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, examined the.accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. and when the accusations constituting offences punishable under Section 323, IO7, 447, 42O and 506 of I.P.C. was put to him, he denied the same and claimed to be tried

¶28

In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.l to 3 and got marked Exs.P. 1 to P.4. No material objects were marked.

¶29

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., rtherein he denied the evidence on record. However, no oral evidence u,as adduced.

¶30

After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Magistrate found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 323, lO7, 447, 42O and 506 of I. P.C. and convicted both the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the olfence .o--itt.d under Section 447 I.P.C., and one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence committed under Section 506 I.P.C., A.2 is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine ol Rs. 1 ,OOO/ - for the offence committed under Section 323 I.P.C., where all the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶31

Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred Crl.A.No.497 of 201O before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By its judgment dated 28.11.201I the appellate Court partly allou,ed modifying the sentence as ' - 'follows: A. 1 is sentenced to pay of fine of Rs. IOOO/- for each

¶32

¶33

sentence and A.2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for each offence and shall pay a f-rne of Rs. I,0OO/ - for each offence. Challenging the same the present revision is tiled.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused and the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶35

There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilty of the revision petitioner/accused No.2 and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.2 has also not proven anything, which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, there is no interference warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 20O6 and almost 16 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner/accused No.2 must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the

¶36

¶37

period already undergone by the revision petitio ner/ accused No.2

¶38

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was modified by the appellate Court. However, the sentence of rlgorous rmprlsonment for a period of three months for the olfence under Section 442,506 and 323 I.p.C., is reduced to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused No.2.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶40

clo sed

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

sd/- T. sRrNlvAs DEPUTY REGTSTRAR / NNi -I ,1 SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

The Metropolitan Sessions Judge ,Hyderabad

¶45

The Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

¶46

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶47

One CC to SRl. B. D. RAJU, Advocate [OPUCI

¶48

One CC to SRl. J. RAMMOHAN RAO, Advocate IOPUCI

¶49

Two CD Copies

¶50

DL 6

¶51

HIGH COURT DATED:05/09/2023

¶52

ORDER

¶53

CRLRC.No.2391 ot 2011

¶54

C) F T
,1 ,1
O
"st \i
a
!i $"
i1.;
t.l
*

¶55

Cd.R.C. IS DISMISSED

¶56

@wo
qlo

Sri G.Yesupadam v. the State of Ap., Rep.by Its P.P and Anohters

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G.Yesupadam v. the State of Ap., Rep.by Its P.P and Anohters

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

Dr.K.Rajeswar Rao,Hyd and 2 Otrs Vs Public Prosecutor,Hyd and Another

G.Rajendra Kumar Vs M.Durga Malleshwari and 3 Others

A.Ananda Reddy Vs the State of a.P., and Another

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.