Dismissed

Mohd. Khaja Hussain, Hyd., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC19 Dec 2024CRLRC/1685/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal revision petitions filed by three appellants convicted of theft and cheating. Judicial review of the appellate court's confirmation was conducted. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence of imprisonment was modified to coincide with the period already served.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed but sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fines unchanged.

Mohd. Khaja Hussain, Hyd., Vs State of Telangana, Rep… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

NOTE:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order^{of the High} Courtdated 08-08-2014 in Cd.RCMP No.2700 of 2014ⁱⁿ Crl.RC^{No 1645 of 2O14.} NOTE:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 13-08-2014 in CTI.RCMP No.2770 of 2014 in Cd.RC No 1685 of 2014.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1645 OF 2014 AND 1685 OF 2014 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^(SR) NO: 32523 OF 2014

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1645 OF 2014

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC^against the^judgment dated 05.08.2014 in Crl.A.No.761 of 2013^{on the file of the Courtof} the Special Judge, for Economic Offences-Cum-Vlll^{AdditionalMetropolitan} Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,^preferred against the^{judgment dated 06-08-2013in} C.C No.219 of 2009 on the file of the Xll^Additional Chief^{IVletropolitan} Magrstrate, Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Umesh Vyas S/o. Davaral Prasad Vyas, Occ:^{42 years, Occ: Business,R/o} Begum Bazar, Hyderabad

¶12

..PETITIONERAPPELLANT/ACCUSED No.⁵

¶13

AND

¶14

State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor,^{High Court at Hyderabad} Hyderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:^'1685 OF²⁰¹⁴

¶17

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397^{and 401 of CrPC against} the^judgment dated 05.08.2014 in Crl.A.No.767^{oI 2013 on the file of the Courtof}

¶18

the Special Judge, for Economlc Offences-Cum-Vlll Aclditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, preferred against the^judgment Cated 06-08-2013ⁱⁿ C.C.No.219 of 2009 on the file of the Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶19

Between:

¶20

It/ohd Khaja Hussain S/o. tt/ohd. Afzal Hussain, Age 24 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Langer House, Hyderabad.

¶21

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED No. 2

¶22

AND

¶23

State Of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad.

¶24

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶25

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE (SR) NO: 32523 OF 2014

¶26

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 4.01 of CrPC against the^judgment dated 05.08.2014 in Crl.A.No.775 ol 2013 on :he file of the Court of the Special Judge, for Economic Offences-Cum-Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, preferred against the^judgment lated 06-08-20'l 3 in C.C.No.219 of 2009 on the file of the Xll Additii:nal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶27

Between:

¶28

Mohd Jahangir S/o Mohd t/qbool, age 24 years, Occ: Business, Rlo 4-2433/1 , Hasan Nagar, Hyderabad

¶29

...PETITIONER/APPELI,.ANUACCUSED No. 4

¶30

AND

¶31

State of Telangana rep by its Public Prosecutor, High C tLrrt at Hyderabad, Hyderabad

¶32

... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶33

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP. NO: 2848 OF 2014

¶34

Petitron under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the liigh Court may be pleased to dispense v.rith filing of the original certified co6ry of C.C. No 219 of

¶35

{ r t IiI !I II I I

¶36

2009, dated 06.08.20'1 3 0n the fire of X, Additionar chief Metroporitan Nampally at Hyderabad before this Hon,ble Court. '\4agistrate

¶37

t.A. NO: 20F 2014(c RLRCM P. NO :2902 oF 20 141

¶38

Petition under section 397(1) of cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence awarded in c.c. No. 21g of 2o*gon the fire of the X', Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate at Nampary by its order dated 06.08.20'13 as confirmed by the orders passed in Grl.A. 775 of 2013, dated 05 08 2014 0n the fire of the court of the rearned speciar Judge for Economic Offences cum Vlll Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad.

¶39

Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. padmalatha yadav, Amicus Curaie

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶41

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶42

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1645 and 16{15 of 2Ol4

¶43

¶44

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ISRI No.32523 of 2OL4

¶45

COMMON ORDER:

¶46

Since the issue involved in these thrt:e Criminal Revision Cases is one and the same and arise out of Judgments dated 05.08.2014 in Crl.A.Nos.75l. 767 and 77 5 of 2O 13 between the same parties, tht:y are heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order.

¶47

Challenging the Common JudgnLent dated 05.08.2014 in Crl.A.Nos.76I, 767 and 775 of 2Cj.3 passed by learned Special Judge for economic offencr:s-cum VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, 'the appellate Court"), confirming the. Jurlgment dated 06.08.2O13 in C.C.No.219 of 2OO9 pasrsed by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court"), Crl.R.O.No.I645 of

¶48

)

¶49

¶50

EW,J -t! Crl.R.C. Nos. 1 64 5 1 6 a 5 -oJ 20¹ 4 crl.R. C./SR,..lvo.32523 of 2014

¶51

2014 is {iled by A5; Crl.R.C.No. i685 of 2014 is filed by A.2

¶52

arrd Crl.R.C. (SR) No.32523 of 20l4 is ltled by A4.

¶53

Heard Ms.Padma Latha Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae representing on behalf of revision petitioners/ accused, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. Perused the record

¶54

The sum and substance of the prosecution cases is that on 03.03.2009 at about 2100 hours the proprietor of M/s.Sri Laxmi Venkatesu.ara Jewellery^(hereinafter called as 'jewellery shop") situated at Shop No.15-1-593 and 15- 1-592, Siddamber bazar, Pathange Building, Hyderabad, closed his^jewellery shop and went^home. On the next day at about 12:45 hours,^{when he openedthe} shop, he found all articles in the cupboards^{were scattered} on the floor ald gold and silver articles^{were missing.} He a-lso noticed a hole vgas dug to the wa,ll of the strong room ald lockers of strong room were broken and committed theft L- in -J the shop b1- stealing 6 to 6Yz Kgs of^gold

¶55

¶56

EW,J CrI.R.C.rV<,s. -1645 16A5 oJ 2014 CrLR.C.'sR .]vo.32 52 3 ol 20 7 4

¶57

jewellery, 1O I(gs of silver ankles and 15 Kgr; of god and goddesses idois. Basing on the complaint rlade by the complainant, a case was registered in Cr.No.3() of 2009 on the hle of Begumbazar Police Station and subsr:c1uently, the case was tralsferred to CCS, Hyderabad on account of seriousness of the offence and the value of the property. On being transfer of case, as per the directions of the learned Additiona,l Deputy Commissioner of f)olice, DD, Hyderabad, Sub Inspector of Police, ADR Teanr CCS has issued a fresh FIR in Cr.No.59 of 2OO9 for itre olfences under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C ald har-rded over the case file to Inspector of Police for further investrgration.

¶58

During the course of investigation, Inspec:t,:r ol'police ADR Team visited the scene of offence alrl examined PWs. 1 to 3. On OB.O4.2OO9 at 11:30 hrs Insper:tor and his staff initially apprehended A 1 to A4 ncar Srinath Jewelleries, Abids, Hyderabad and recovered 916. 1S gms of gold from A1,996.15 gms of gold from A2, 10()3.6 gms of gold from .A3 and 434 gms of gold from 44 an<i seized the

!r-.

--1

EW,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1645- I6A5 oJ 2014 CTLR.C-lSRf.J\Io.3 2523 oJ 2014

¶64

property under the cover of panchanarna and recorded their confessional statements in the presence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 (mediators). Based on confessions, officers were led to Umesh Vyas (A5), shop at Begumbazar, and found 16 kg silver, 1 kg gold purchased from A1 to A4 for Rs.2 lakhs, Silver melted into ingots r.r,ith the help of P.W.3 and seized 9 kg silver ingots, 7 kg silver items (plates, tumblers, idols, etc.,) under the cover of palchanama. Basing on confession, the officers i('ere led to Anup Kumar Kulla Bappa (4'6), who purchased 600g gold and 7.5 kg silver from A5 for Rs.2 lakhs and these items were melted into 7 gold ingots and 3 silver ingots and in the process of melting 100 grams were depleted. In the presence of P.W.7 and P.W.8, the officers recovered 7 gold ingots weighing 5OOg and 3 silver ingots weighing 7.5 kgs under the cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. ,46 also confessed that he sold 75 gms of gold to N.Shiva Kumar (A7) for Rs. 1 Iakh. On 08.06.2009 at about 9:30 a.m. the Inspector apprehended A7 and he confessed the offence and 75 gms

¶65

)

¶66

¶67

EW,J CrLR.C.Nr: s.I645 16aS oJ 2014 CrLR.C. s-R1.No.32523 of 2014

¶68

gold ingot \vas seized from him in the prescrrr:e o[ P.W.7 and P.W.8 arld he was remanded to^jud i( iirl r:ustody. Crowbar (M.O 83) and Screwdriver (M.O.84) \'('re recovered from A3's house, which were used in the comnrission of the cr1me.

¶69

The final investigation revealed that acr:userl A. 1 to A.4 v/ere close friends, engaged 1n pett\ jobs, and financially distressed. Due to addiction to v ces and the urge to overcome their monetary issues, A. 1 rr.asterminded a theft plarr and shared his plan with A.2, 1..1, and A.4, who agreed to participate arrd A.2 to A.4 re<:c,nnoitred the area and identified a vrrlnerable spot at the rezrr of tl-re shop M/s.Sri Laxmi Venkateswara Jewellery, SiddanLber Bazaar on the intervening day of 03/04 March,2OO9 :u-ound 01O0 hrs, A. I , A.2, and A.4 entered the shop thro -r.gh the hole while A.3 kept watch outside and stolen gold an,l silver ornaments in significant quantity. Post-theft, rhey returned to A.3's house and distributed the stolen property I )^A.5 knorvirQlfpurchased a portion of the stol( n ornaments

¶70

¶71

EW,J - Crt. R.C. Nos.^{1 645} -^{1 6a5-of2O1 a} Crl.R.C./SR^{.No.32523 oJ2O l 4}

¶72

lor Rs.2,0O,OOO/-^{and meltedthe silver and gold and sold it} further to A.6,^{whoalso knewthe property was stolenand} he melted it into^{ingots and sold 75g ol gold to A'7' with} knowledge that^{it was stolenproperfyA' 1 to A'4 usedtheir} sharetotraveltovariouscitiesinlndiaandSpentlavishly. A.5 and A.6^{used their profits to bet inhorse races'} Multiple seizures^{made from all accused includinggold and} silver ingots,^{Tooisused for the break-in (M'O'83 and} M.O.84). Confessional^{statementsrecordedin the presence} of mediators^{and witnesses (P'Ws 1 toP W'8)' After} concluding the^{investigationcharge sheet was {iled against} A. 1 to A.7 under^{appropriatesectionsfor breaking the shop} and committing^{theft and for receivingstolen property'}

¶73

The prosecution,^{insupport of its case'examined} P.Ws.l to lO^{and relied upon Exs P'1 to P'30 and M'Os'I} to 85. The^{accuseddenied the incriminating evidence'The} accused did^{not placeany evidencein support of their}

defence.

)

EW,J CrLR.C.Nas-1645 t6a' oJ 20t4 CrLR. C./SR/.No.3 2523 of 20 14

¶78

8 The primary judge having appreciated thc r:vidence on record found A.2 and A.4 guilty for the olfr:nces under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. and A.S to A.7 r.r.c r,: convicted for the offence under Section 4Il I.p.C arlrl thcy 1'ere sentenced to thc terms indicated hereinbefore

¶79

After completion of investigation, charg: shcet was filed against A I to ,{7 for the offences punishabk. under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IpC and the sarnc: uras; taken on lile in C.O.No.219 of 2OO9 on the filc of lezrrned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hlderabad.

¶80

Before the trial Court, the prosecution, rrr support of its case, examir-red P.Ws.I to 1O and relied upon Exs_p. I to P.30 and M.Os. 1 to 85. The accused 1,:nied rhe incriminating evidence. The accused did not place any evidence in support of their defence.

¶81

The trizLl Court having appreciated thr: oraLl and documentary evidence on record vide its judgrent dated 06.08.20i3 in C.C.No.2l9 of 2OO9 convicted 1,.2 ancl A.4

¶82

¶83

EW,J Crl.R.C.Nos.7645 16aS of 2014 CrLR. C.lSRl-No-32523 oJ 2O14

¶84

for the offences under Sections 457 arrd 380 I^{. P.} C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for each offence and directed to pay a fine oi Rs.5,000/- each for each offence; in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and to run the sentences concurrently.^Whereas,A.5 to A.7 were convicted for the offence under Section 41 1 of I.P.C and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment^for one yezlr each and directed to pa]' fine ol Rs.2,0OO/-^each; in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.

¶85

L2. Aggrieved by the said^judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the tria.l Court, the^petitioners I^{A5, A2} and A4 preferred Cr1.A.Nos.76 l, 767and 775 of 2013^on the hle of the learned Special Judge for economic offencescum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the appellate Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence available on record, dismissed the appeals vide common judgment dated 05.08.2014 in ) ,,\

¶86

¶87

EW,J CrLR.C.ito.t- 7645 16A5 _oJ 2014 Crl.R.^{(.14SRf.Jvo.3} 2523 oJ 2014

¶88

Crl.A.Nos.76 l, 767 ar,d Z7S of 2013 by confirrrring the findings of conviction and sentence ils agatnst petitioners/A5, A2 arrd 44

¶89

Aggrieved by the impugned common juclp;ment dated 05.08.2014 in Crl.A.Nos.Z6l, Z67 and 275 of 2r1 13, passed by the appellate Court, the petitioners hz ve Uled the present Critninal Revision Cases.

¶90

LearnL--d counsel representing petitioner.s contended that the trizrl Court as well as appellate Court ,:rroneously found the petitioners/A5, A2 and A4 guilry r.r.ithout appreciating the evidence available on record in a proper perspective and seeks to set_aside the same. Ijhe further contended that the prosecution failed to brirrg home the guilt of the petitioners beyond all reasonable cro.bt and the ingredients to constitute the said offences are I ot mzrde out by the prosr:cution. She further contended thrrt p.Ws.3, 5 and 6 are the interested vr.,itnesses and there is zt failure on the part of sorne of the s-itnesses to identify the persons who made conf essions before them lr.hich led to recoverv. of

¶91

¶92

EW,J CrLR-C.Nos.I645 16a5-of 2014 CrLR.C./SR/.No.32 52 3 of^{201 4}

¶93

ornarnents from their^{possession. As such no} credit^{can be} given to the evidence of such evidence. She^further contended that the investigating agency^{has not conducted} any identification parade for identifying^{the properties} allegedly seized from A. I to A.5 to^{say that those articles} recovered belonged to P.W. 1 and^{further contendedthat} P.Ws.5 and 6 were the President^{and Membersof the Gold} and Jewellery Merchalts Association^{of Siddamberbazar} and they are interested witnesses^{to the case of the} prosecution artd no reliance can be made on^{such evidence} to prove the confessions and^{recovery of ornaments from} the possession of A. 1 to A.5.^{Therefore,she seeks to} allow the Revisions.

¶94

On the other hand, learned^{Assistant Public} Prosecutor vehemently opposed the^{said argumentsald} contended that merely because^{P.Ws.S and 6 happened to} be a President and Member of gold and silver^merchants association they cannot be branded as interested^u'itnesses since they have no interest in the result of the litigation.

¶95

¶96

EW,J Crl.R.C. Nos. 7 645 1 685-of 20 I 4 CrI.R. C,/SRI.]vo.32523 oJ 2O14

¶97

From the evidence of P.Ws.S and 6 and corroborative evidence of P.W.9 the police officer b:lbre whom confessions u,ere made by A. 1 to ,\4, the prosecution proved the recoveries and confessions of A1 to AS. He further contended that merely becau sr: tlte test identification parade was not conducted to identify the properties it <:annot be said that the testim,tny of those witnesses can be ignored. The items which u,t:re recovered were resemblance u,ith items given in missin g list of and stock of the jeu,ellery shop. Hence, he seeks tr, ,lisnriss the Revision s.

¶98

A perusal of record reveals that the recovery of orrlaments from the possession of Al to 4 rvas within the gap of one month and huge quantity is c,ne of the circumstances relevant for invoking inference ar-rd absence of plausible explanation and accused not affluent r:nough to possess such huge quantities of silver a:r,C gold are relevalt circumstalces to invoke the provisiors of Section 11.1 of Indian Iividence Act to convict the accur;r:d for main

--".

1.2

EW,J crlR.c.Ivos.I645 16As of 2014 CrL-R. C.{SR .110.32523 oJ 2014

¶103

offence. Therefore, the trial Court appreciated the evidence available on record in right perspective and came to a^just conclusion and convicted A2 arld A'4 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and A5 for the offence under Section 4ll of IPC and the appellate Court confirmed the said findings of the trial Court, which needs no interferences. In view of the above, this Court does not hnd common arry reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court.

¶104

L7. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners/A5, A2 and A4 suffered menta.l agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as eleven long years have already been elapsed from the date of filing of these Revisions, this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient view and hold that while conhrming the conviction imposed against A5 for the offence under Section 41 1 of IPC, and A2 and A4 for the offences under Sections 457 ald 380 of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment imposed b1'

¶105

¶106

EW,J CrLR.C.Ittos.7645 1685 of 2014 CII.R. C./,s'R .No.32523 of 2014

¶107

the appellate Court is reduced to that of the period already

¶108

undergonc by the them.

¶109

Accordingly,^q,hile confirming the convictton recorded against the ,{5 for the offcnce under Section 4 | of tpC, and ,{2 and r{4 lbr the oflences under Sections 457 a rr:l 380 of IpC, the sentence of imprisonment imposccl on the petitioners/A5, .A2 and A4 by the appellrrte Ctourt is modified by reducing the same to that of the f,eriod already unclergone by the them. Hovvever, the fine am()unt imposed by the learned trial Court, as conlirmed by the appellate Court, remains unchanged.

¶110