The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Dinesh Reddy Mallireddy(Amicus Curiae) Counsel for the Respondent: Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONCII,RABLE SRI JUSTTCE E.V.VENUGIDPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1443 OF 2O1 + ORDER: This Clirr ireal Revision Case is filed bv the rt:titioner- accused N -.r. I ; nder Sections 397 and 40 1 of tlrc Code of Criminal Pro,:erh.rre, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggriev,:rl by the Judgment ,1ater[ ] O.O7.2Ol4 in Criminal Appeal No.430 of 2Ol4 passed by th e le arned Metropolitan Sessions Jud6,e, I I'rderabad (hereinafter ref e r red as 'the learned appellate Oourt') ( :c nfirming the Judgment ol Conviction and Sentence dated 03.C4.2014 in C.C.No.4OS cf 1'(.r 11 passed by the learned XVI Additirna-l Chief Metropolitan \4rrr4istrate, Hyderabad (hereinafter re'ferr grl as the learned tri:.l tlorr-t').

02. Hearc[ iiri l)inesh Reddy Mallireddy, learned rmri:rts curiae for the revis o n petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh Learned .,\ssistant Public Prosecu[ot for the State-respondent.

03. The t,ri.:f ircts of the case are that on 09,04.2010, A1 was found taking examination in the place of his cousin b'cther i.e., A2 and ,A.1 r'ras caught hold by Department officr:rs ,vhile they were veriflrin5l t.lrr: candidates with their photos on the zit-endance sheet. Basr:d on the complaint, a crime was regis;terr :cl against 2 accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.92 of 2010 for the offence punishable under section 479 of the Indian penal code (for short 1PC).

04. The learned trial Court vide Judgment dated O3.O4.2Oll passed in C. C. No.4OS of 2O I 1 found the petitioner-accused No. 1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 419 of IpC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and set off the remand period undergone by him under Section 427_A of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeai.

05. The learned appellate Court vide Judgment dated 10.07.2014 dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.43O of 2OI4, confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective Judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set-aside the impugned judgment. OT . Learned Assistant public prosecutor submitted that the learned appellate Court rightly passed the impugned Judgment \ \ a 3 arld the inl,erfer: ence of this Court is unwarrantecl. 'lherefore, learned couns;el seeks to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case'

08. Befort' r.he learned trial Court, on behall of pros'ecution, PWs. 1 to 4 u.r:r,: r,xamined and Exs.Pl to 6 were marke<|. No oral or documer tan. evidence was adduced on behalf of t he i tr:cused.

09. The lt:a:nt,ci trial Court upon careful considt:rat on of the material av,lilable on record found that PWs' 1 alrd 11, rviro are the Chief Supt:rintrr tdent and the Departmental ofllc':r, of SSC examinatior-t, de p osed that when they went to examin alion hall for checking the identification of the candidates md r so hall tickets, the y nr,ticed that 41 attended the examina-ti:.r in the place of on,: .,\sril and also the identification of tl're c anc i<late who was present Ln tl-re examination was not tallying $'ith tlle photo on the attendanc,: sheet. The evidence of prosecution w tresses is consistent anrl corroborating with each other, tht r':by, the prosecutiorL r:st rl:lished its case against the ar:cus;ecl. Ilased on the oral ar: d dc,cumentar5r evidence on record, tht^ 1ez rned trial Court by u172u,' r.,f its Judgment convicted and sentr:nced the petitioner a s sta t,-'d supra.

10. The lerrrr ed appellate Court upon re-apprrec: ating the material available on record confirmed the cc,n,ri,:tion and 4 sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offence n punishable under Section 419 of IPC. 1 1 . A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide Order dated 14.O7.2014 passed in CRL.R.C.M.P.No.2352 of 2Ot4 suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending this Criminal Revision Case and enlarged the petitioner on bail. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.

12. In the case on hand, the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court concurrently held that the petitioner- accused No.1 herein was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4L9 of IPC, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 40 I of the Cr.P.C., as there are no grounds much less valid grounds, or irregularities, or illegalities, to interfere with the well considered Judgments of both the Courts and accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

13. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as ten long \ t I I ) I 5 years have e1;rp-rs;ed from the date of filing this Revisi:n, -tLis Court is therefort: r-rclined to take a lenient view. Acr:ord ilrgly, the judgment f,ar;secl by the learned appellate Court is m o lified by reducing the serrt-ence to that of the period already unclergone by the petitioner. Except the above modification, the other aspects of the finding s ,rf -he learned trial Court and the leatnec rrppellate Court are u phe'lC .

14. Resultantll,, the Criminal Revision Case is disrnissed. As a s,:c3te:l, miscellaneous applications, pendi r11 if any, shall stald clors:rl .; I //TRUE COPY// SD/. Ti.SATYAVATHI DEPUIY REGISTRAR OFFICER "SECT}ON I \ To,

1. The tt4elropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad' i. fne >Vt Acd tional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad' a, two ]C,s tl the Public Prosecutor, High Court for tne State ll Telangana at HYde:abarJ tOUTI O6nsr)CtoS'iOinesnReddyMallireddy(AmicusCuriae)'Advr><;ate[OPUC] 5. Two rlf C;r lieS V}VDL. *r$,. I L-- l l I I i i I l I I i I I HIGH COITJR-T DATED: 2t710112025 l ORDER GRLRG.ttlo 1443 of 2014 _.14 ,.:-. 1 tt)' l-iE S ',.4 ,c 1 I JUN Z0Z5 ,/ /g' ,l t) ,o l, f \,, i; 'c ,:il I D!SMISSINGi THE CRL.R.C o OL 5 8