The High Court · 2025

The State through the Sub-lnspector of Police, PS Charminar, Hyderabad. Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Apurva M Gokhale Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER 'j':r THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3OO of 2OL4 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated I2.O2.2O14 in Criminal Appeal No.517 of 20 12 passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") confirming the judgment dated 04.06.2O12 in C.C.No.234 of 2Ol2 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad (for short, the trial Court) with a modification that the accused Nob.1 and 2 arb fci'ufld ltrllty'for-the'offCn'ce unddi Sebhorf 379 of IPC instead of Section 382 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.04.2011 at 4:00 p.m. while the de-facto complainant was in front of A.P.High Court, two persons came on a motor cycle in the opposite direction and snatched away her gold chain with Mangalsutram. Basing on the complaint made by the de-facto complainant, a case was registered in Cr.No.85 of 2O 1 1 for the offence under Section 382 of IPC and the 2 EW,J CTLR.C-No.3oo o! 2at* same was taken on fiie in C.C.No.234 of 2012 against the petitioners/ accused Nos.l and 2.

3. After hearing the arguments on both sides and after a scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad observed that the material objects were proved to have been stolen from PWl artd stolen objects were found in possession of the accused and all that was established by cogent evidence and the accused failed to offer any explanation for possession of stolen goods and therefore, they were found guilty for the offence under Section 382 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a hne of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred the Criminal Appeal.

4. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated

12.O2.2OI4 in Crl.A.No.517 of 2OI2 confirmed the judgment dated O4.06.2012 in C.C.No.234 of 2Ol2 passed by the trial Court with a modification that the accused are !r*,-.Pv ,.:".,:-,+ / 3 EVV,J CiLR.C.No.3OO oI20* found guilty for the offence under Section 379 of IPC instead of 382 of IPC. Assailing the same, the petitioners preferred the present Revision.

5. Heard Mr.Apurva M Gokhale, learned counsel for the revlslon petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/ State. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused contended that the trial Court erred in convicting the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 382 of IPC and the appellate Court erred in confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court and modifying the Section from 382 of IPC to Section 379 of IpC when there are contradictions and omissions and in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence. He further contended that except examining the interested witnesses, no independent witness was examined to prove the guilt of the petitioners/ accused and without conducting the Test Identification parade, identification of petitioners / accused by the witnesses for the first time in 4 EWJ CrLR.C.No.3OO oI 2AA4 the Court is unbelievable and such an evidence cannot form basis to convict the petitioners/ accused. He a_lso contended that since the case is pending for a long time and 10 long years have already been.elapsed from the date of hling of this Criminal Revision Case, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused sought to allow the Criminal Revision Case in view of the mental agony sulfered by the petitioners/ accused for all these years

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistalt Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in proper prospective, found the revision petitioners/ accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. He further contended that the stolen property is recovered from the possession of the petitioners/ accused, lenient view cannot be taken against the revision petitioners/ accused arrd hence, sought for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case

8. Having regard to the submissions made by both the respective learned counsel, upon considering the fact that # 5 EryJ Crt.R.C.No.3OO oI2oA4 the petitioners suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as u/ell as the appellate Court and as ten long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court is inclined to take I t a lenient view in their favour. Accordingly, the sentence imposed against the petitioners is reduced to the period which they have already undergone if any. Further, the fine amount is increased to Rs.10,0OO/- from Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioners are directed to deposit the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- to the credrt of C.C.No.234 of 2Ol2 on the lile of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such payment, tLle de-facto complainant/PW1 is permitted to withdraw the same to the satisfaction of the trial Court. If the petitioner fails to comply u.ith the aforesaid direction he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

9. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case, in all other aspects, stands dismissed. 6 EW,J CrLR.C.No.3Oo of 2ol4 Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if arry, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SO/. K SAILESHI OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (with records, if any)

2. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. 4. The Station House Officer, Charminar Police Station' Hyderabad 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to Mr. Apurva M Gokhale, Advocate [OPUC] 7. fwo CD Copies kam/gh W HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.30O of 2014 DISMISSING OF CRIMINAL REVISION CASE fl\1 90 x5 \ 1tlE STA 14: ( q 3 02 llAY 21ffi t t o E.sparcH ) z Ct .t