Partly allowed

Mohammed Rasheed, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024CRLRC/1529/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision against conviction and sentence for railway property damage. While conviction upheld, sentence reduced to time already undergone after 17-year lapse due to non-feasibility of substitution.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner; conviction upheld.

Mohammed Rasheed, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated.25.07-2011,in Crt.RC.M.p.No.2230 of ZOil in Crl.R.C No.1529 ot 2011.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1529 OF 2011

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order and sentence dt.16-6-201 1 ,passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar,Hyderabad,in Crl.A.No.4.1 of 2010 of 2011, confirming the Judgment and order of conviction passed by the ll Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways at Secunderabad,dt.'l9-3-2010,in C.C.No. 1 1 of 2009.

¶8

Between:

¶9

MOHAMMED RASHEED,S/o Mohd. Shajahan, Business, R/o H.No.1-B-1411J139, Samatha Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETtTtONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, Hrgh Court of A. p., at Hyderabad.

¶13

lnspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, Moula Ali.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶16

:SRI M.KARUNA SAGAR

¶17

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

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : NONEAPPEARED

¶19

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶20

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶23

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^{No.1529of 2ol].}

¶24

ORDE.R:

¶25

This Criminal Revision case is filed against^{the Judgment} dated 16.06.2011^passed in Crl.A.No.4l^{of 2O1O on the file of} the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad^{at L.B.Nagar,by} which the conviction imposed against the^{petitioner/accusedfor} the offences punishable under Sections 154^{and 161(b] of the} Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the Act, 1989)vide^Judgment dated 03.01.2008 in C.C.No.11 of 2009 on^{the file of the II} Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad,^was confirmed.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner^as well^{as learned} Assistant Public Prosecutor and^perused the^record.

¶27

The allegations against the revision petitioner is that on 18.11.2007 he has driven his car bearing No.AP-1lB-4719 and dashed against the running train No.594^{(Manmad-Kachiguda} Passenger) while it was passing through unmanned level crossing near Kuchavaram Railway Station^between Manoharabad and Medchal Railway Stations. On account of the act of the revision petitioner none sustained injuries, however, some of the coaches and foot boards of the train and rail barricade were damaged.

¶28

¶29

The Railway Police arrested^{the revisionpetitioner and also} conducted investigation. During the^{course of investigation} panchanama was conducted at^{scene of offence.Accordingto} the Railway Police, the total^{loss incurred was estimated about} Rs. 15,000/-. Accordingly, the^{petitionerwas found guilty under} Sections 154 and 161(b) of^{the Act, 1989and he was sentenced} to under simple imprisonment^{for a periodof three monthsand} also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-^{for each count, in defaultof} payment of fine amount, he shall^{undergosimple imprisonment} for two months and also.

¶30

In appeal, learned^{SessionsJudge while confirmingthe} conviction passed by the trial^{Court, reduced the sentenceof} imprisonment from three^{(O3) months to one (01) month under} both the counts. The said sentences^{shall run concurrently.}

¶31

Having gone through the^{record, this Court is of the} considered opinion that there^{are no reasonsto interfere with} the findings of the Courts^{below regardingthe manner in which} the vehicle was driven resulting^{in which the damagewas} caused to the railway^{property.However,keeping in view of the} fact that the accident^{was occurredin the year2OO7 and nearly} 17 years have been passed.^{Therefore,this Court deems it} appropriate to reduce^{the sentenceof imprisonment to the}

¶32

¶33

',)

¶34

peri()d already undergone by the revision petitioner, which

¶35

uph,rlding the conviction under both counts.

¶36

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in-part. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. *';l'tTfffill,'Hl[

¶37

/,TRUE coPY// .--I6b-.SECTIOfrSFFICER To, ,t. The Court of the Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Cyberabad,at L.B.Nagar,} Hyderabad. 2.TheCourtofthellMetropolitanMagistrateforRailwaysatSecunderabad. 3. Two CCs^{to PublicProsecutor'High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]' 4. The lnspector^{of Police, Railway ProtectionForce' Moula Ali'} 5. One^{CC to SRI M KARUNASAGAR'Advocate [OPUCI} 6. Two CD^CoPies YV pcsd/gh

HIGH COURT

DAI-ED:09109t2024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1529 of 2011

¶42

rHE S T4
iJ
?z oec u?t
sp.q T

¶43

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶44

1-*<'a W flf,A

Mohammed Rasheed, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Rasheed, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uddagiri Venkaiah, Nalgonda District Vs State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad

Regulla Bhumanna Vs Mohd Ayub Khan

P. Janardhan, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its P Hyd., and Another

M.Sagar Reddy, Vs Nyayapathi Vani

Habeeb Mohsin Vs Mohd.Muzafaruddin Mohmood Khan

T.Harikrishna, Hyd., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.