Partly allowed

Mohammed Amjad Kahn v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC9 Oct 2023CRLRC/756/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Telangana High Court dismissed the plea against conviction and sentence for theft but reduced the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner due to mental agony.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision dismissed; sentence reduced to the period of detention already undergone.

Mohammed Amjad Kahn Vs the State of A.P. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

(

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIM]NAL REVISION CASE NO: 756OF 2012

¶7

¶8

lc riminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 rlw 40'l of Cr.P.C against the Judg'rneht dated 11.1 .2012 made in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2O11 on the file of the codrt of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilbad^prefened against the Judgmeht dated 1 1-5-2011^passed in C.C.No. 223 of 2010 on the file of court of the SpeciallJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile (PCR), Adilabad

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mohamined Amjad Khan, S/o. Md.Hussain Khan, R:/o. Dhanora Village, Kerameri Mandal,l Adilabad Dist.

¶11

...Petitioner/AppellanUAccused

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF A.P., through Station House Officer, Bela Police Station, Adilabad .rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P at Hyderabad. I ...Respondent tl

¶14

ilr

¶15

Counsel for thd Petitione(s): Sri RAVI, LEARNEo COUNSEL REPRESENTING I

¶16

SRI. S SURENDER REDDY

¶17

Counsel I for the Respondent: Sri VIZARATH ALl, ASSTSTANT PUBLIC i PROSECUTORi

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E. V' \IENT'GOPAL} CRIMINAL^{REVISIONCASE No.756oF 20L2}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The present^{Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrievedby the} judgment dated^{1 l.Ol'2012 in CrI'A'No'84of 2Ol1 on the file of} the learned^{I AdditionatSessions Judge, Aditabad(for short' "the} appellate^{Court") in confirming the sentenceimposedby the} learned^{SpecialJudicial Magistrate of First Class' Mobile (PCR)'} Adilabad^{in C.C.No 223 of 2010 dated 11'05'2011 (for short''the} trial Court") '

¶23

Heard Mr.^{Ravi, learnedcounsel representing} Mr. S. Surender^{Reddy,learned counselfor the petitionerand} Mr. Vizarath^{Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appeanng} for the resPondent^state'

¶24

The brief^{facts of the case are that on O3'O6'2010at about} 10:30 A.M.,^{PWI gave a report to PW8 stating that he is the} owner of^{CD DawnMotor Cycle bearing No'AP-01-G-5271and} parked the^{same within the premises of his house during the} previous day.^{But the same was foundmissingthe next day'} Basing on^{the said complaint the police registered l'he case in} .Q.No.3iof20lofortheoffenceunderSection3T9ofI.P.C.

On 04.06.2O10^{whenPW7 was conductingthe vehiclecheck} on the national highway,^{he foundthe accused on the motor} cycle. After investigating^{the case, the police filed charge sheet} against the petitioner^{and the sarne was taken cognizanceby the} learned Magistrate alrd^{numberedthe sarne as C'C No'223of} 201o.

¶29

After full.fledged trial,^{the trialCourt convicted the} petitioner under Section⁴¹ I^{of I.P.C. aldsentenced him to} undergo simple imprisonment^{for two years vide judgmentdated} I 1.05.2011 in C.C.No.223^{of 2OLO- Aggrievedthereby, the} petitioner preferred an appeal^{before the appellate Court'Vide} judgment dated 1l.Ol.2Ol2 in Crl.A.No.84^{of 2Ol1, the learned} Judge dismissed the^{appealand confirmed the judgment passed} by the trial Court. Assailing^{the same, the presentRevision'}

¶30

karned counsel for^{the petitioner submittedthat the trial} Court as well as the appellate^{Court failed to appreciatethe} evidence and the documents^{marked by the prosecution dr-rring} the course of trial in^{proper perspectiveand passed an order of} conviction without any basis.^{He further statedthat the trial} Court ought to have considered the^{panch witnesses, PWs'2and}

¶31

¶32

3, who did not support the case of prosecution and ought to have acquitted the petitioner. Therefore, seeks to allow the Revision.

¶33

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellate court alter careful consideration of the evidence available on record rightly passed the impugned judgment and therefore, sought to dismiss the Revision.

¶34

On behalf ol the respondent, the trial Court examined PWs. I to B and marked Exs.Pl to PIO and MOl. On behalf of petitioner, none were examined and no document was marked. PWl is the complainant and owner of MOl/motor cycle. pW2 and PW3 are the panch rvitnesses to the crime details. pW4 and pW6 are the panch witnesses to the confession and seizure of MO1. PWS is the panch to the confession of accused. pW7 is the S.I. of Police of PS II Town Adilabad who recorded the confession of the accused and seized MO1. PW8 is the Investigating Ofl-rcer.

¶35

A perusal of the evidence of PW7, S.I. of^police categorically stated that on 04.06.2010 at 11:lO A.M. he, along with constables was conducting vehicle check on NH7 in front of railway station Aclilabad wherein, they found the accuscd coming on motor cycle and on seeking them the accused trit:d to flew away. On suspicion, they apprehended the accust:d. Upon

¶36

¶37

enquiry, he^{made a confessionin the presence of PW4and PW6'} Pursuant thereto,^{the said motor cycle was seized under Ex P6} panchanama.^{By the confessionunder Ex P6' the accusedled} them and^{the panchasto bushesat CCI Adilabad and from those} bushes, he^{producedMO1 motorcycle and another motor cycle} pertaining to^{other cases' The sarne was seizedunder Ex} P7 f seizure^{panchanama and intimated to PWS'So the evidence} of PW7 supported^{the case of the prosecutionregarding the} confession^{of the accused on 04 'Ci6 '2O1Oand seizure of MO1} under a^{cover of panchanama' The evidence of PW7 remained} unchallenged^{regarding the confession of the accused and seizure} of MOl/motor^{cycle at the instanceof the accused underExs'P6} and P7.

¶38

Moreover,^{the evidence of the accused was that the motor} cycle^{was not seized from him' But the'prosecutionprovedthat it} was seized^{from him. The accused could not offer any explanation} for MO 1^{being recovered from his possession'Therefore' the} appellate^{Court dismissed theappeal and conltrmedthe} judgment passed by^{the trial Court'}

¶39

The^{matter pertainsto the year' 2Ol2 and this Court vide} order dated^{16.O5.2012suspended the sentence of imprisonment}

( I

)

imposed upon the petitioner for the offence under Section 41 I of I.P.C. pending Revision and released him on bail on furnishing personal bond for Rs.S,OOO/- u,ith two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶44

In the present case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held the petitioner guilty of the offences under Section.41l of I.P.C., which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

¶45

There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered^judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Courts and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

However, as the petitioner, suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is hereby reduced to the period of detention already undergone by him under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

¶47

Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case in all other aspects, stands dismissed.

¶48

¶49

Miscellaneous^{Petitions,pending if any, shall stand closed}

¶50

SD/.I, NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUryREGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

¶55

The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,^{Mobile(PCR),Adilabad.} (with records, if anY)

¶56

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High^{Courtfor the State of Telangana,} Hyderabad.[OUI]

¶57

One CC to SRl. S SURENDER REDDY^Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Two CD Copies rsP I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0911012023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.756 of 2O12

1Yt E STATF
q
o I oEr 2r8 F
f
,./
,,/
..i

¶66

CRLRC IS DISMISSED

¶67

*
"il

Mohammed Amjad Kahn v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Amjad Kahn v. the State of A.P.

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

T.Pramod Kumar, Nampally, Hyderabad Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Otrs

Peruri Santhosh, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District Vs the State of A.P. Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

Mohammed Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

P.Nagaraju Vs the State of Ap., through the P.P and 3 Others

Gobba Ravinder Reddy, R.R.District Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., Hyderabad

B.Teekaram Singh Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers