Dismissed

Gugulothu Reddy, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC12 Mar 2024CRLRC/557/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against concurrent convictions for producing a fake Intermediate certificate to obtain government employment. The High Court declined to disturb the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence of imprisonment set off against period already undergone; fine/compensation retained.

Gugulothu Reddy, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

Bail Slip:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the^{o_rder of^theHigh} coufl dated o2.o4.?012 in crl.Rc MP No.884 0f^{2012in Crl.RC.No-5570f 2012}

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVIS ION CASE NO:^{557 OF 2012}

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 and^{401 of Criminal ProcedureCode,} against the Judgment and Decree^{dated 17.01.20211, passedln CC.No.358 of} 2008 on the file of the Court of the^{Judicial Magistrateof First Class,} Vemulawada, Karimnagar District,^{preferredagainstthe Judgmentdated} 28.03.2012^passed in Crl.A.No.14 of^{2011 on the file of the Court of the lll} Additional Sessions Judge, at^Karimnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gugulothu Reddy, S/o Sunder,^{Rl/o MothkulapallyVillage, Karimnagar District.}

¶10

...Revision Petitioner/Sole Accused.

¶11

AND

¶12

The State through Station^{House Officer,Vemulawada,Karimangar District,Rep by} its Public Prosecutor,^{High Court of A.P.,at Hyderabad.}

¶13

...ResPondenUComPlainant.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{Sri SiripuramKamud}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent:^{Sri KhajaVizarath Ali, Asst Public Prosecutor(TG)} The Court made the following^ORDER:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.557 of 2O12

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The present criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 407 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the |udgment dated 28.03.2072 in Crl.A.No.l4 of 2017 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions ]udge, at Karimnagar wherein the Judgment^{dated77.07.2011in C.C.No.358of 2008 on the file of} the leamed |udicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada, Karimnagar (for short'the trial Court') was modified.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner

¶23

was appointed as typist vide proceedings dated 15.07.1999 of C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Karimnagar and later his service was converted into as ]unior Assistant. Thereafter, upon the complaint given by the tribal student to CEO, 2.P., Karimnagar, the CEO, 2.P., Karimnagar vide letter dated 03.03.2004 issued directions to obtain the original certificates of the accused in order to verify the genuineness of the certificate

¶24

with the Principal, Junior College, Arts Wing, Karimnagar. In

¶25

¶26

pursuant of the same, the principal, Junior College, Arts Wing, Karimnagar issued a letter dated 03.06.2004stating that the memo produced by the accused is fake and further informed that the accused was failed in Intermediate exam and the certificate produced by him is a fake document. Hence, the complaint.

¶27

During the course of trial,on behalf of the complainant, Pws.1 to 7 were examined and got marked Exs.p.l to p.25. There is no evidence add uced on behalf of the accused either oral or documentary.

¶28

After appreciating the oral and documentalry evidence on record, the hial Court found that the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 465 of IpC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years/_. the accused found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 46g of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment f or a period of three years. Further, the accused found guilfy of the offences punishable under Section

¶29

¶30

¶31

420 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple

¶32

Imprisonment for a period of tfuee years with fine of Rs.500/-, for each offence under Sections 468 and 420 of lPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for each offence under Sections 468 and 4ZO of IpC and he was further found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 471 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

¶33

Aggrieved by which, the revision petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2011 before the appelate Court, the Iearned appellate Court after examining the material facts before it and upon considering the trial Court Judgment in C.C.No.358 of 2008, has partly allowed the criminal appeal confirming the Judgment and conviction passed by the kial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

(<br>

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,^leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for^{respondent-State} and perused the record.

¶38

¶39

There is concurrent finding of both the Courts^below with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner/accused^{and the} learned counsel for the revision^{petitioner/accused did not} appear and place anything before this Court,^whichwould discredit the evidence. Therefore,^{no interference is warranted} as far as conviction is concerned, but^{with regard to the} sentence, it may be mentioned that^{the offence took place in} the year 2004 and this revision^{was filed in the year 2012 and} almost 08 years have passed and during^{this period, the} revision petitioner/accused must^{haverepented for whathe} did. In these circumstances and in^{the interestof justice, it is} expedient to reduce the sentence of^{imprisonment to the} period already undergone by^{the revision petitioner/accused} while maintaining the compensation^{imposed by the trial} Co\t.

¶40

¶41

¶42

The Criminal Revision case is dismissed. However, the

¶43

sentence imposed by the trial Court is set off to the period

¶44

already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused.

¶45

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶46

closed.

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

Sd/. M.RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUW REGI$TRAR LJ^,' SECTIO}tOFFICER

¶49

To,

¶50

The lll Additional^{Sessions Judge,at Karimnagar'}

¶51

The Judicial^{Magsitrateof First Class, Vemulawada' Karimnagar}

¶52

One CC to^{Sri Siripuram Kamud, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶53

Two CCs to^{PublicProsecutor, High Court of Telangana'[OUT]}

¶54

Two CD Copies

Jgk/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:121O312024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.557 of 2012

lHE SI4 14:
e
oo ((()
0 2 i,pn Znt
(
t {'
spArc HE9

¶64

DISMISSING THE CRL RC

¶65

G)oro

¶66

\ ,x

Gugulothu Reddy, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gugulothu Reddy, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

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

N. Jangaiah Vs Smt. Sridevi

Kurva Shyamappa Vs the State of A.P.

Firoz Basha, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Kohilakonda Satish Kumar Vs the State of Ap.

Gutala Raju and 4 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Kande Sammaiah, Karimnagar., Vs Md.Abdul Hussain, Karimnagar and Anr, Rep Pp.