Dismissed

Mekala Rajanna v. the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P.

Telangana HC20 Feb 2023CRLRC/791/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard a Criminal Revision petition challenging the conviction under Section 394 IPC where the appellant alleged the plea of guilty was not voluntary. The court found no material to support the claim that the plea was involuntary and dismissed the petition,upholding the original and appellate judgments.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial court and the appellate judgment.

Mekala Rajanna Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 791 OF 2009

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397^{& 401} of^{Cr.P.C againstthe} Judgment made in Crl.A.No.42 ot 2004^{dated 1310312O06on the file of the Court of} the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge^{(FTC), at Medak preferred againstthe} Order made in CC No.250 of 2003 daled^{1511212003, on the file of the Court of the} Judicial First Class Magistrate, at [/edak.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mekala Rajanna, S/o. Peddanna

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P.;/ Telangana, Rep. by^{its Public Prosecutor, High Court at} Hyderabad' Hyderabad

¶13

...RES'.NDENT

¶14

CRLRCMP. NO: 1085 F 2009

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr,PC^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{grounds of CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court} may be pleased to suspend the operation^{of the sentence passed in C.C.No. 250} of 2003, daled 15.12.2003 on the file of^{Judicial first Class Magistrate,Medak as} confirmed in Crl.A. No. 42 of 2004 on the^{file of lll Additional District & Sessions} Judge (FTC) at Medak by releasing the^{petitioneron bail, pending Crl'R.C.}

¶16

For the Petition6r: M/S. P. SUJATHA

¶17

For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE H:()NOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NII(iAITJUN

¶21

CRlll'/INAL REVISION CASE No.791 oI2CtO9

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Tlre t I irninal Rt:r,rsion Case is filerl agErr:ved bv the Judgmt:nt :l rled 15.12.2OO3 in C.C. No.25O or' ,10C3 passed bv the leir-r red Judicial First Class Magistra : at Medak, q,[i6[ r-1,i11,; :onfirmed bv the learned III Addi. r,na[ District and Scssror rs .Iudge (Fast Track Court) ir: IV edak in Crl.A.No.42 of 2OO1 dated 13.03.2006,^,r'helein the petitioner/.r(,:r,tsed was found guilty for the oflenr:e under Scction 3() 1 of the Indian Penal Code arld r;tnt:nced to undergc) ri3:r rr s imprisonment for a period of tv,: years. The petitionr:r h:r e Ln is arraved as accused No.12 in t^- r said case

¶24

The iac s in brief as per the record an: as ti.-l der: (i) o r 17 Ol 2OO3 at 09:.lO t.).m., the petitionr:r/ ar: :trsed engaged auto rickshaw of one P.Shiva Shankar to q , 16 Japthishivnoor for a sum of Rs.!lO/ When auto has rec r:hed Japt.hishivnoor village, the pt:titioner has asked the:.rr^,r driver to stop the auto. In the m:anuhile, the petitioner LLrrr irssaulted the said Shiva Shankel rol.ed their

¶25

.a r:

¶26

¶27

towel around his neck and tightened^{it and dragged the said} Shiva Shanker from auto^and tried^{to kill him and robbednet} cash of Rs.40O/- from his^{pocket along with auto rickshaw} worth of Rs.90,OOO/-.

¶28

(ii) Aggrieved by the sarne, a case in Crime^{No.S of} 2OO3 was registered for the^{offence underSection394 of the} Indian Penal Code and charge^{sheet is filed.}

¶29

After completion of^{investigation,copies of chargesheet} were furnished to the petitioner under^{Section2O7 of tl:,e} Code of Criminal Procedure.^{On 15. L2.2OO3, the petitioner} was produced before the trial^{Court from WarangalJail.The} petitioner was examined under Section^{239 of the Codeof} Criminal Procedure,^{whereinchargewas framed against him} for the offence under Section^{394 of the IndianPenal Code,} read over and explained to^{him in Telugu for which the} petitioner pleaded guilty. On considering^{the pleadingof the} petitioner as voluntary, the^{petitioner was foundguilty for the} offence under Section 394 of^{the Indian Penal Code and} convicted him under Section^{241 of the Code of Criminal} Procedure and sentenced him^{to sufferrigorous} imprisonment for a^{periodof two yearsand the remand}

¶30

¶31

period rtlrcir J, Lrndergone b,r.the accused u,its r)._cle red to be sct off

¶32

Aggri,,v <: b-r, tl're same, the petitioner along tr.ith accused Nr,., has pr.eferrcd an appeal que r; iron ing the sentencc pi s :;r.d by the trial Court. It rs c:t.'tended by petltionet- arrr ,rccusecl No. 1 that due to presslL-{: o. police, both the pctil :)lrer and accused No.1 have admitrr:rl that they are guiltr. ar,:l also admitted that the charlJ: was not voluntary. O tr considering the submission and bzrs Lng on the material, :hc.{.rpellate Court has dismissed lhe alroeal

¶33

Aggriev:d by the same, the petitioner has pr:lirrrr:d this Criminal Revis;i rn Case on the ground that admit.. r,Lg r:harge by the petitionr: is not voluntary.

¶34

Hearcl Iv!7s. p. SUJATHA, learned Crlunsr)l for the petitioner .n. I ri Muthy.la Muralidhar, lear.ned u,:ldirional Public Prosr:cu tr; .. br respondent_State.

¶35

Norv the pr nt for consideration is

¶36

"Wh<:tl. er the Judgment dated

¶37

15.12.2003 ;n .. No.25O of 2OO3 passed. bg

¶38

¶39

-,,:

¶40

the learned^{Jud,iciatFirst ClassMagistrate' at}

¶41

Medak is tiable^{to be set aside?"}

¶42

As seen^{from the record,the criminal revision case ls} filed in the^{year 2009. It is representedby learnedcounsel} for the petitioner that^{duringthe pendencyof the appeal' the} petitioner was^{undergoing the sentence'However'} subsequent^{to filing of this revision petition, the petitioner} has filed an^{application inCrl'M'P'No'1O85 of 2009 and} accordingly^{bail was granted to the petitioneron 13'05 2OO9'} Therefore, from^{the date of remand,the} petitioner was^ln judicial custody and was^undergoing sentence until 13.05.2009.^{Even if the date of dismissalof the criminal} appeal was^{taken into consideration,which is 13'03'2006'} the petitioner^{was undergoing sentence i'e', for a period of} three years.^{Whereas the trial Court has imposed the} sentence for^a Period^{of two} Years'

¶43

Even^{thoughthe trial court has imposed a sentence for} two years,^{the petitioner has undergone more than two years} of sentence.^{It appears that as the petitionerwas required in} other cases,^{he was detainedin judicial custody and was}

¶44

¶45

un(lcrgo rli{ sentcnce. 'l'hc trial Court lras il:r, ) otclcred that thc unr i rrllone pt:riod froln thc date of an-r:sl o rhc date of scnter( i g the petitioncr \ras ordercd to l)c set off under Scc:tiorr^. 2 3 of thr: Ooclc of Criminal proc,_'drrre

¶46

lO. 'I'lri . tlourt has gorrc through the material on t.ecor-d and Itrurrd th 11 there is no material to hold ttLat t te admission macle o,, tlre petitioner in admitting the char:r, sheet is not volttr-ttut-\ . Therr:fore, thcrc is no ground to ir-r.,:t-fer: with the judg,rne rt t,f the trial Court, u,hich \ras cor ll .mr.cl bv the appt:llat, {)r turt

¶47

1 1 . Ir r ew o[ the cliscussion made z bovt:, lhe Criminal Revision .ilrse is dismissed by confirnring^. I : .fudgrnent dater,l - 3 lt'..2OO3 in C.C. No.250 of 2OO3 I,ir;se,i b1, the le:rrr: ed .lr d icial First Class Magistrate, at Meda l<

¶48

As :r st:quel, pending Miscellaneous ,\p1>lir irtions, if any,

¶49

shall st:Lr r, I <:1osed.

¶50

¶51

Sd/. T.SRINIVAS rl tiPU'IY REGISTRAR

¶52

Note: On basis letter d :rkrd 20.06.2023 & Orders of Registrar^(Judiciz ll, thtr name of the counsel fc tfre^petitioner is corrected as^"P. Su.iatha" inst:ild of "T. Koteswara Pr'aserc^'' This Order substitutes the earlier order dist.r lhe(l on 13.06.2023

¶53

Sd/. T.SRINIVAS I]I:PU'TY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ( t :;ECTION OFFICER

¶54

To 1 . The lll Additic ra District and Sessions Judge, [redak. 2. Two CCs to the^:'ublic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of^l',)lang rna at Hyderabad (C)tl' )

¶55

One CC to [vl/s.^:'. Sujatha, Advocale [OPUC]

¶56

Two CD Copi-.:;

HIGH COURT

DATED:201O212023

CORRECTED JUD( MENT

CRLRC.No.791 of 2 I09

¶66

.,.i
I
P
li:ii. I JUI 208 1i
t..

¶67

DISMISSED.

¶68

wP 6\c'*---

Mekala Rajanna v. the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Rajanna v. the State of A.P. Rep. by P.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

Syed Wajid Ali, Vs Sana Begum and Another

Dildar Khan, Vs Smt. Sahera Babu and 4 Others

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

Murali Krishna Shinde , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Thummala Pavan Kumar, Madhira, Khammam Dist. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

A.Bharat Raj, Vs a.Balaram and Another