Dismissed

Kohilakonda Satish Kumar v. the State of Ap.

Telangana HC12 Mar 2024CRLRC/955/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by an accused convicted of corruption offences. The Court observed that the conviction was safe but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, ordering full payment of compensation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision is dismissed; the sentence is set off to the period undergone; the petitioner must pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation within three months.

Kohilakonda Satish Kumar Vs the State of Ap. — Corruption | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL sLlP : The Petitioner/^{AccUSed was directed to be reieasedon bail by the} o-r'Oer of t'-ne-ffigh^{Court dated.22-05-2013 in CRLRC MP No.1494 of 2013 in} Crl.R.C No.955 of 2013.

¶2

[^32ss ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶7

CRIMIN AL REVISIO^{N CASE NO : 955 OF 2013}

¶8

criminal Revision^{casefiled under section 397and 401 of cr.PCagainst} the Judgment dated^{08.05.2013made in crl-A.No.19of 2013 on the file of the} Court of the Principal^{Sessions JudgeMedakat Sangareddy preferred against the} order dated 04.03.2013^{made in c.c.No.O70f 2012 0n the file of the court of the} Special Mobile Court^{for Karimnagarand Medak Districtsat Sangareddy' medak} District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kohilakonda Satish^{Kumar,S/o Narasimulu,occ: Ex-FieldASSiStant, R/o} Tekmal Village and^{Mandal Medak District}

¶11

...Petitioner/AppellanUAccused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of AP^{Rep by its Public Prosecutor High court of AP''Hyderabad}

¶14

...RespondenURespondenUComplainant

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{Sri Palle Sriharinath}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:^{Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, Assistant} Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court made the^{following:Order}

¶18

I! i :

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.955 of 201.3

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The present criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 08.05.2013 in Crl.A.No.19 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge^{Medak, at Sangareddywherein the} fudgment^dated 04.03.2013 in C.C.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Magistrate, Special Mobile Court for Karimnagar & Medak District at Sangareddy (for short'the trial Court') has been modified.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that the accused while working

¶23

as Field Assistant executed the work of land leveling and prepared the musters showing the Work ID as 850020 and also executed the work of silt musters showing the Work ID as 40085 insteatl of executing the work of bund strengthening as sanctioned in Work [D No.50020. As such, the record was wrongly prepared as if rhe sanctioned works were executed and the amounts were withdrawn which amounted to illegality resulting in misuse of funds Thereafter, the accused has been removed from service by the Presiding Officer because of the alleged offences punishable under the A.P. Promotion of Social Audit and the Prevention of Corrupt

¶24

¶25

Practices Ordinance 1 ol 2O12 and^{also the IndianPenal Code.}

¶26

Hence, the complaint.

¶27

During the course of trial, on^{behalf of the complainant,} Pws.l'and 2 were examined^{and got markedas Exs.P.12to P.15.} There is no evidence adduced^{on behalfof the accused either oral or} documentary.

¶28

After appreciating the^{oral and documentary evidence on} record, the trial Court has Passed^{the judgmentin C.C.No.07of} 2012 which reads^as under:

¶29

" In the result, the accu*d is found not guilty of tlrc charge U/S⁹ (2) of Act 3 of 2012 and he is acquitted of the stnt^{U/S 248(1)} CI.P.C. But the^{accused is} found^{guiltyof tlru clmrges U/S 9 (3), 9} (L) of Act 3 of 20L2 and also U/S 409 IPC^and s^{cortt'icted of the} same U/S 248 Q) Cr.P.C.

¶30

Accordingly the accused is^{sentenced to stLlfer sinryle} impisonmeit for six^{months and to pry} firc^{of Rs-10000y'|DSI} for tzoio months for the^{offence U/S 9 (3) o.f Act 3 oi 2012, to suffer} simple imprisonment of^{six montlsand to prry} .fint^{of Rs' 10000/-} IDSI for hoo months for^{offenceU/S 9 (1) of Act of 3 of 2072, to} suffei simple impinnment for^{one yettr nrul to pay to} fne^of R;.10000/- IDSI for^{huo months} for^{tlrc ot'lenceU/S 109IPC. All tle} sentences of impisonment^{shall run conctrrretLtly"}

¶31

Aggrieved by the^{same, the revisionpetitioner/ accused}

¶32

preferred an appeal^{before the learned appellate Court and the} leamed appellate Court^{after consideringthe facts and} circumstances^{and upon perusingthe} Judgment^{of the trial Court in}

¶33

¶34

: ii : ! !I 2 I I I

¶35

C.C.No.0Tof20l2,haspartlyallowedthecriminalappealby

¶36

modifying^{the following order:}

¶37

"15. In the result,^{the CiminalAppealis allozoed in pnrt'} sustai,ring^{the conuictionand alsothe sentence of fne andthe} delnuh^{s;ntunce,thnt tuasimposedon the appellant't'or all the} three offences for^{tohichconoiction zoas atoardzd by tfu Special} ingrri*r,^{SpecialMobile Court for Kaimnagar antlMedak} Diitncts^{at Sangnreddy,in C C' No' 07 of 2012' oide iudgment} dnted 04th^{March, 2073 Hozueuer,the substantioe sentenceof} sinryle impisonment for^{six monthson each of the frst hl'o} cou.nts nnd^{alsothe simpleimpisonmentfor one year on thz thnd} count,^{imposedon him, by tfu SpecialCourt'in tht impugned} yrdgtnent',^{is reduced to thatof threemonths on eachof the three} ' counts^{nnd the sante shall run concunently'"}

¶38

Chaltenging^{the same,the presentcriminal revision case is} preferred.

¶39

Hearcl learnecl^{counsel for the revision Petitioner' learned} Assistant^{Public I'rosecutor appearingfor respondent-Stateand} perused the^record-

¶40

(

¶41

There are concurrent^{findingsof both the Courtsbelow with} regard to guilt^{of the revision petitioner/accusedand the learned} counsel for^{the revisionpetitioner/accuseddid not apPear and} place anything^{before this Court, which would discreditthe} evidence.^{Therefore,no interference is warranted as far as} conviction^{is concernec{-[n these circumstances and in the interesr}

¶42

¶43

of justice, it is expedient^{to reduce the sentenceof imprisonmentto}

¶44

the period already undergone^{by the revision petitioner/accused} while maintaining the compensation^{imposed by the kial Court'}

¶45

The Criminal Revision^{case is dismissed and the sentence} imposed by the trial Court^{is set off to the period already} undergone by the revision^{petitioner and the revisionpetitioner} shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-^{in C.C.No.O7of 20-12 on the file of} the learned Special^{Magistrate,Special MobileCourt for} Karimnagar & Medak^{District at Sangareddy,within a period of} three (03) months^{from todaY.}

¶46

Pending miscellaneous^{applications,ifany, shallstand}

¶47

closed

¶48

Sd/. I.NAGA^LAKSHMI D EPUTY^REGIS

/ITRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{Sessions Judge Medakat Sangareddy'(with records'if any)} 2. The Special^{Mobile Courtfor Karimnagar and Medak Districts at} SangareddY,^{medak District.}

¶54

a. iire"Superlntendent,^{District Prison,MedakDistrict at Sangareddy}

¶55

Two cis^to the^{public prosecutor,High court for the state of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶56

One^{CC to Sri Palle Sriharinath,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶57

Two CD^CoPies

ADK/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210312024

--='

fl'J^Frf,i

ORDER

CRLRC.No.955^{of 2013}

¶67

DISMISSING^{THE CRLRC}

Kohilakonda Satish Kumar v. the State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kohilakonda Satish Kumar v. the State of Ap.

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.

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

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.