In a criminal revision under Sections 397 & 401 CrPC, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition challenging the conviction and sentence for theft and mischief. The court reduced the term of sentence to the period already undergone by the accused, retaining the fine.
Sentence reduced to period of undergones; fine retained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Bail Slip: The Petitioner / Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 1647-20'13 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No. 2195 of 20't3 in Crl.R.C. No. 1432 ot 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEI'BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1432OF 2013
Crl. Revision Case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C. 1973 aggrieved by the Judgment dated 11-07 -2013 in Crl.A.No. 32 ot 2O13 on the file of the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy preferred against the order dated 09-04-2013 in C.C. No. 134 ot 2O1O on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate , Sangareddy, Medak District.
Between:
Manne Sangameswar, S/o Narsaiah, aged about 26 years, R/o Pothireddipal{i Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.
...PETITIONER/ AppellanUAccused
AND
The State of A.P., Rep, by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad
...RESPONDENT/ Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. LAKSHMA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI E. GANESH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court delivered the following Judgment :
! I !1 Iil
R THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.l 432 0F 20t3
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is hled aggrieved by the judgment dated 1 l.O7.2Ol3 in Crl.A.No.32 of 2Ol3 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, "the appellate Court"), confrrming the judgment dated 09.04.2013 in C.C.No.134 of 2O10 passed by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, Medak District Sircilla (for short, "the trial Court").
about 6 tulas and absconded. In his complaint he hasgiven descriptive particulars of the accused thathe was with height of 5.5' and was wearing white shirt, black pant and further contended that on seeing the accused, they can identifyhim. According to them, they havepurchased theproperty about three years back and its value is Rs.75,0OO/-. On the basis ofthe above complaint, the investigating offrcerregistered a case in Cr.No.285 of 2OO9 under Section 356 and379 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 and investigated into. Duringthe courseof investigation he examined andrecorded the statementof LW1 and examined other witnesses, visitedthe scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama inthe presence of panchas and during further course of investigation,on 19. 1 1 .2009, while the accused wasmoving insuspicious circumstances at Pothireddypally X road,LW13broughthim to the Police Station and on interrogationthe accusedconfessed about his commission of offence and theaccusedwas arrested and sent the accused to theCourtfor judicialcustody. Sincethe investigating officer filed charge sheet, thisCourt tookcognizance of the case for the offence under Sections356 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 againstthe accused.
I i f
I t i I
the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court. Accordingly, the present criminal revision case is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous apptications, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/. K. S SHI DEPUTY RE STRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
kul/gh \s'
I 1 I! I : :
HIGH COURT
DATED:1111212024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1432 of 2e13
1 $E STA t c
(.r,'
t
e
2 i FiB 2025 c
t
i o
.,4
DISMISSING TIII] CRI-.R,(
(a1?Til,{ 1*!';$,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was warranted in recording reasons to reduce the period of sentence imposed on the petitioner to the extent of time already undergone by him in judicial custody before dismissin
Whether the High Court was justified in maintaining the fine amount imposed by the trial and appellate courts in light of the modification made to the term of imprisonment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manne Sangameswar
State of A.P.
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
