Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2013 · The High Court · 2025

Sri Yogesh Agarwal Legal Aid Counsel Sri E Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following Order : 7 ?; THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE E. V' VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1886 of 2Ol4 ORDER: The present criminal revision case is Iiled by the petitioner/accused No.2 against the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.496 of 2013, dated 15'07.2014 passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad (for short 'the appellate Court')- 2- The brief facts of the case are that on 2O.OI-2O13, on reliable information about running a brothel house. at H.No.A-68, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad, police raided the said premises and found Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also A3 in a separate room along with sex workers. On the statements being recorded, police arrested A1 to A3, recovered items from their possession and registered a case in Crime No'45 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short the ActJ against A1 and A2 and for the offence under Section 7 of the Act against A3 and sent them to judicial custody. a In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs' 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-l to P-7 and MOs. 1 to 8 were marked before the learned Trial Court in C.C.No.2O of 2013. ,/ I 2 On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

4. After appreciating the oral and documentaqz evidences on record, the learned Trial Court found the appellant/accused No.2 guilty for the offence under Section 3(2)(a1,4 and 5 of the Act and he was convicted for the said offences under Section 2a8Ql of Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,OOO/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, 1956. Further, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Act and sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 5 of the Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months, Further, directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention if I t -:7 l) any undergone by the accused as under trial prisoner, shall be set off under Section 428 of lPC.

5. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner/appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.496 of 2073 before the appellate Court, the learned appellate Court after examining the materia_l facts before it, has partly allowed the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence so far as Section 5 of the Act and rest of the conviction and sentence in judgment passed in C.C.No.2O of 2Ol3 dated 14.05.2013 was confirmed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and perused the record. 7 . Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially in judicial custody for certain period and later, he was enlarged on bail granted by the trial Court, appellate Court as well as this Court. He further submits that it is apparent that the petitioner has undergone mental agony during the lengthy and long I I I : I II I I I 4 proceedings initiated by the trial court as well as the appellant Court. Hence seeks to allow the present criminal re!1slon case.

8. Though the Appellate Court had set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 5 of the Act, since aII the sentences shall run concurrently, tJle maxlmum sentence of imprisonment against the accused remained unaltered. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused did not place anything before this Court, to 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 long back and during this period the rerrision 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 confirmed by the appellate Court. 9. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the appelate court. However, the t t ______-_;- 5 sentence imposed by the learned trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under 3(2)(re) and simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Act, which was confirmed by the appellate Court, is set off to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused, while maintaining the fine confirmed by the appellate Court against the petitione r / appellant / accused. Pendirrg miscellaleous applications, if any, shall 3tand closed I To, I //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR ^ DEPUTY REGISTRAR \1 t\ l\ ON OFFICER I I

1. The lV Addilional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (with records, if anY)

2. The Special First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad 3. The Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

4. The Station House Officer, SR Nagar PS, Hyderabad District 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

7. One CC to Srr Yogesh Agarwal, Legal Aid Counsel [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies VA/gh w i I HIGH COURT DATED:21 10112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1886 of 2014 DISMISSING THE CRLRC @ W I H l oR 1"1 d \ * o r () s' 21 fiAt| ?t25 n4 'l 4 fl t: o