The High Court · 2025

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. Sri M.L.Anand S/o. RamlalAnand, Aged about 66 years Regional Marketing Manager, U.P.State Handloom Corporation Limited, shop D4 & D5, Mayur Kushal Complex Abids, Hyderabad. (Cause title amended in CRLRC as per Court Order Dt.10.06.2020 vide l.A.No.3 o12020.) ... RespondenURespondents/Com pla i nant lA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.408 of 2016 on the file of the ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case. dt.271212020, pending Counsel for the petitioner: SRI C.SHARAN REDDY 9:lT_"1 I:t _t!e Respondents : Smt S.MADHAVT, ASSISTANT pU BLtc PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER I I I ! I I I ! I , I i i +te. -00 4hS Ecc' +'u THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA ORDER: 1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 27.02.2020 passed in crl.A.No.408 of 2010, on the file of the learned ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in setting aside the judgment passed by the court of ll Additional chief Metropotitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in c.c.No.z66 of 2oo1, dated 29.04.2016, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 2- Heard sri c.sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as smt. s.Madhavi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-statil.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the accused herein was charged with offences under Sections 40g, 468, 471 and 42o of l.P.c. and the Trial court, after conclusion of trial and on evaluating the entire evidence on record, has passed judgment dated 29.04.2016 in c.c.No.766 of 2ool convicting the accused only for the offence under section 408 of rpc and acquitting the accused for the remaining offences. when the matter was carried out in Appeal before the sessions court, the learned sessions Judge has observed that distinct charges were not framed concerning all the I ' i I I I 2 ETD, J Crlrc 343 2020 offences alleged and that only omnibus charge was framed and hence, remanded the matter to the Trial court for conducting trial and to dispose of the matter as expeditiousry, as possibre. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is flled. 4' The learned petitioner's counsel furlher submits that all these offences arose out of a singre transaction wherein it is aileged that the petitioner herein has committed misappropriation of certain amounts while working in U.p. State Handroom corpr:ration Limited and thus, there is no necessity to frame distinct charges against the accused herein 5 The learned Assistant public prosecutor has not opposed the said submission 6- A perusal of the record reveals that the allegations in the prosecution case refer to a single transaction. tt is alleged that during the annual stock verification on 3'r.03.1gg8, it was noti<;ed that there was shortage of goods wo(h Rs.3,47,3g2.g5 paise and cash of Rs-84,546/- was found to be shortage of and the credit sales were shown to a tune of Rs.4,g9,46.50 paise and that the accused are alleged to have prepared fake bills mentioning the names of fictitious persons in the name of Up state Handtoom corporation Limited. t \ \ \,.\ I I I ; I i I I i ; I i 3 ETD, J Crlrc 343 2020 7 - The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 408, 468, 471 and 420 of l.p.c. The Trial court has framed the charges, heard the accused on the charges, conducted trial and on evaluating the entire evidence on record, has convicted the accused only under section 408 of IPC and acquitted the accused for all the charges 'under sections 4oB, 471 and 420 of l.p.c. The Appellate court has observed that the charges were framed by the Trial court based on the above accusations and distinct charges were to be framed against the accused and only then, the trial had to be conducted. By observing so, the Appellate court has remanded the matter to the Trial Court for framing charges and for conducting de novo trial. The Appellate court ought not to have observed and I II passed the said order. There is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Trial court vide its judgment dated 29.04.2016. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Lt B. ln the result, the criminar Revision case is altowed setting aside the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2020 passed in crl.A.No.4O8 of 2016, on the file of the learned ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the First Appellate court is directed to decide the matter afresh by hearing both the 4 ETD, J Crlrc 343 2020 parties and dispose of the same stricfly according tc, merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this court in this order. However, it is made clear that the observation as to the findings of the Trial court is only with regard to framing of charges and conducting trial and this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the conviction under Section 408 of l.p.C. 9- As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pendin,3 if any, shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SD/. T.VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The ll Additionar Metroporitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2' The llAdditionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 3. The station r-rouse officer, Abids porice station, Hyderabad. 4' Iffi":r"r:1i3fi;r0,," Prosecutor, Hish court ror the state or reransana at I I I

5. One CC to SRt C.SHARAN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL I \ HIGH COURT I I I DATED i2411U2A25 I ORDER CRLRC.No.343 of 2020 4 .t. . : j:. -' i 10trtIffi D'F gr>p.1 :1-r., ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE AA l,r 0d