[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Nissankara Rao Poornachandra Rao And … vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 17 April, 2025
APHC010332522009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 2063 and 2036 of 2009
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:2063 of 2009
Between:
Thaneeru Venkata Rao, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap Rep By Its PP Hyd ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI
Counsel for the Respondent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRICRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2036 of 2009
Between:
Nissankara Rao Poornachandra Rao
And Another ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of A P Rep By PP ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. CH RAVINDRA BABU
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009
Dated 17.04.2025
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
The two Criminal Revision Cases are heard and disposed of by this
Common Order inasmuch as the Calendar Case against the three petitioners
is one and the same.
2. Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 have been preferred under
Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the
Cr.P.C‘), challenging judgment dated 24.11.2009 in Crl.A.Nos.106 and 137 of
2009 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),
Guntur at Tenali, altering the conviction from Section 379 of ‘the IPC.,’ to
Section 411 of ‘the IPC‘, while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment and
fine, imposed by the judgment dated 17.03.2009 in C.C.No.65 of 2006 passed
by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, whereby and
whereunder the petitioners in the two Criminal Revisions Cases were found
guilty for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
‘the I.P.C‘) and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.
3. Sri. Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel, representing Sri. Sreekanth
Reddy Ambati, and Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, the learned counsels for the
petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.2036 of 2009 submit that there was no direct
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009
Dated 17.04.2025
evidence to show that the petitioners have stolen the wire bundles; there was
a time gap of one month in between the date of alleged offence and the arrest
of the petitioners; P.W.1 did not give any descriptive particulars of the names
of the accused in the complaint; no reliance can be placed on the alleged
recovery; and there was no identification parade conducted with respect to the
property, and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Cases.
4. Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners have
relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Kumar v. State of
Madhya Pradesh1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the failure of the
prosecution in establishing mens rea or knowledge that the property in
question was stolen property. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued
that there was an admission in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that the stolen
property would be available in the market. Therefore, the petitioners cannot
be attributed with the mala fide intention of possessing the stolen property and
urged to exonerate the petitioners from the impugned judgment.
5. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Accused Nos.1 and 3 have been,
indeed, underwent incarceration as remand trial prisoners and post- conviction
prisoners for considerable length of time. As there are no adverse
antecedents against the petitioners, it is urged that they may be sentenced to
the imprisonment to which they have already undergone as the fine amount
was also paid by them.
1
(2022) 9 SCC 676
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009
Dated 17.04.2025
6. Per Contra Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
argued that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is well-thought and
there was no misreading of evidence, no flagrant miscarriage of justice and no
perverse finding. The petitioners suffered concurrent convictions, and
appreciation of the evidence is not permissible in the revision cases and urged
to dismiss the revision cases while requesting to consider the plea of the
petitioners with regard to the quantum of sentence that could be imposed on
the petitioners.
7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned counsels for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
8. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the judgments in Crl.A.Nos.106 and 137 of 2009, dated
24.11.2009, passed by the learned XI Additional District Judge
(Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, are correct, legal, and
proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and
there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”
9. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 5, and marked Exs.P.1 to
P.14 and M.Os.1 to 3. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the property covered
under M.Os.1 to 3 was committed theft by known offenders. Therefore, he
lodged a report with the police. Undoubtedly, there are no eyewitnesses,
when the live electrical wire was stolen in a systematic manner. Further, it is
evident that the property was seized from possession of Accused Nos.1 to 3
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009
Dated 17.04.2025
and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was also recovered from possession of
Accused No.5, on the information furnished by Accused Nos.1 to 3.
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Kumar (supra) at paragraph No.23
held as under:
“When we apply the legal proposition as propounded to the
present circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the
prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant had the
knowledge that articles seized from his possession are stolen
goods. This essential element was not established against the
appellant to bring home the charge under Section 411 of „the
IPC.,‟ against him”.
11. The goods involved in Shiv Kumar (supra) were some utensils, which
are ordinarily available in shops, whereas the property involved in the present
case is live electric wire, which is not ordinarily available in the market let
alone in shops. The material objects are exclusively used by the Electricity
Department on making special order directly to Industries manufacturing them.
The material objects were recovered from the possession of Accused Nos.
1 to 3. Accused Nos.1 to 3, in their examination under Section 313 of ‘the
Cr.P.C.,’ failed to explain how the live electrical wire came into their
possession. Although P.Ws.2 and 3, who signed Exs.P.6 to P.8 and P.9,
partly resiled from their earlier version, their signatures were identified and
admitted in the mediators’ report. It is not the case of the petitioners that
P.W.1 lodged a false complaint with the police, even though no theft was
committed. There is no animosity attributed in between P.W.1 and the
petitioners. Although the learned Trial Court found the petitioners guilty under
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009
Dated 17.04.2025
Section 379 of ‘the IPC.,’ the learned Appellate Court, having examined that
there were no eyewitnesses to the commission of the theft of the material
objects, found the petitioners in possession of the material objects and
fastened the liability on them for the offence punishable under Section 411 of
‘the IPC‘. Albeit, there is a time gap of nearly one month between the date of
commission of the offence and the apprehension of the petitioners along with
the material objects, it can be inferred that the petitioners were in possession
of the stolen property, though not immediately after the commission of the
theft, inasmuch as the stolen property is a peculiar one, which is not ordinarily
available in the open market, but exclusively maintained by the Electricity
Department. The live electric wire which the petitioners are not supposed to
be in possession of it. The officers of the Electricity Department identified that
the live electric wire was belonging to their department. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the electric wire was committed theft, and it was found in
possession of the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that the wire
does not belong to the Electricity Department, nor is it the contention of the
petitioners that they are the owners of the property. At any rate, this Court by
exercising jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot re-
appreciate the evidence. Therefore, the conviction under Section 411 of ‘the
IPC.,’ shall be maintained.
12. In regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners, it
is submitted that the petitioners have undergone 77 days of incarceration on
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009
Dated 17.04.2025
different cells, either as remand prisoners or convict prisoners. The offence
was committed in the year 2006; nearly 19 years have passed by; right to
speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21
of the Constitution of India as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar 2 .This right
includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a
speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar3. The petitioners have been
facing mental agony due to the time elapsed since the theft and the prolonged
litigation.
13. For the above reasons, these two Criminal Revision Cases are disposed
maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the IPC.,’ while
sentencing the petitioners to undergo the imprisonment to which they have
already undergone. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 17.04.2025
RSI
2
Air 1979 SC 1360
3
2000 (1) BLJR 37
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009
Dated 17.04.2025
105
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 2063 and 2036 of 2009
17.04.2025
RSI
[ad_2]
Source link