Dismissed

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

Telangana HC11 Mar 2024CRLRC/623/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against concurrent conviction for cheating and criminal intimidation. The High Court confirmed the conviction but, noting about thirteen years had elapsed since the offence, reduced the three-month simple imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of three months' SI under Sections 417 and 509 IPC reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 623 OF 2013

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Order dated 20-03-2013 made in Crl.A.No.811 ol 2012 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, Preferred against the Judgnrent passed in CC.No.507 of 201 1 dated 14-8-2012 on the file of the Court of the lV Spl. Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Firoz Basha,, S/o. Abdul Azeem, R/o. H.No.3-11-1, Santosh Nagar, Kurnool Town, H.No.12-17, Alampur, Near Post Office, Mahaboob Nagar District.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of AP., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

CRL.R.C. M.P.NO. 970 0F 2013.

¶14

Petition under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C. praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the execution of sentences passed by the lV Spl. Magistrate at Hyderabad, in CC.No.507 of 2011 dt. 144&2012, as confirming by the Judgment of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hydeabad, in Crl.A.No.811 of fr12, dt. 20-032013 and release the petitioner on bail, Pending disposal of CRLRC 623 of 2013, on the file of the High Court.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THEHONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINA L REV ISION CA SE No.523 of.2013

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present criminal revision case is filed seeking to call for the records and set aside the order of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.g11 of 2012, dated 20.09.2019 confirming the order of the learned IV Special Magistrate at Hyderabad in C.C.No.507 of 201L, dated 14.08.2012.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public prosecutor for the respondent_State and perused the record.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a compraint against the accused that for few years sfrE fiia an affair with Feroz Basha, the accused and the accused promised her that he would marry her and

¶23

¶24

thereafter, he cheated her and the accused has torfured her by blaming her with bad words in front of their parents and friends and also scolded her as "Ianja" and also tortured her and stated that he would pour acid on her, if she marry any other person and he had got some photos of her. The de facto complainant asked the accused to return the photos, as he was telling that he would spoil her life by showing her photos to her husband. The accused had come to Hyderabad and tortured her several times and therefore lodged a complaint with the police to take necessary action against him. The Police Nallakunta registered a case in Cr.No.269 of 2010 against the accused for the offence under Sections 506, 509 and,417 of. Indian Penal Code and during investigation recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offences before the trial Court.

¶25

¶26

In support of its case, the prosecution examined pWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.pl to y22. No witnesses have been examined on behalf of the accused, but documents Exs.D1 to D5 are marked.

¶27

After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the leamed Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 477, 509 of IIrC sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.gll of 2012 before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. By its judgment dated 20,03.2013, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the same the present revision is filed.

¶28

¶29

Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

¶30

respondent-State and perused the record.

¶31

There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the leamed counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has also not shown me anything, which would 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 2011 and almost 13 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused, while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court against him

¶32

¶33

¶34

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court, which wai confirmed by the appellate Court. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offences under Sections 417 and 509 Irc is reduced to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused.

¶35

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶36

closed.

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

Sd/. T.KRISHNA KUMAR DEBUTY REGISTRAR \ t)

¶39

SEbTION'OFFTCER

¶40

To,

¶41

The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad_

¶42

The lV Spl. Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶43

One CC to Sri. P Vamsheedhar Reddy Advocate [OPUC].

¶44

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶45

Two CD Copies.

YtR/chdffiL

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:f 1lO3l2O24

ORDER

Y o * 1HE S14)t. \o)1,
l0 6 JUll 2024
I a
o6,.srA rcHg-O

¶52

GRLRC.No.623 of 20f 3

¶53

DISMISSED AS MODIFIED THE CRL. RC

¶54

fup
6?'1

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Basha, 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

M/s Venugopal Transport and Company Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Smt. Sannella Yadamma, R.R. Dist. and 3 Othrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Nazia Begum , Nasiya Sulthana, Nalgonda Dist and 4 Others Vs Prl Secy, Home Dept., Hyd and 4 Ot

N. Jangaiah Vs Smt. Sridevi

Kurva Shyamappa Vs the State of A.P.

Rathod Swarupa Vs Smt. Vakati Karuna IAS