Rajender v. State of Rajasthan, he contended that th

Petition under liection 397 (1) R/W 482 of CrPC pra yin,g that in the circumstances stated n the affidavit filed in support of the petitiorr, tre High Court may be pleased to r:rrlarge the petitioner on bail in CC No.6,f c f 2015 dated 1110512016 on the filr of Vl Additional Chief fvletropolitan lr4agis ra e Hyderabad, which was confirmed n Criminal Appeal. No. 528 of 2016 dated 1 3/10/2016 on the file of l\/etropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, during the penrlelcy of Criminal Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner in both cases: SRI T. JASWANTH KUM/\R Counsel forthe Respondent in both cases: SRI E. GANESH ASSISTANT PUBLIC PRO SE,CUTOR The Court made the fcllowing: COMMON ORDER THE HO N'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL R.C.NOs.696 AND 697 OF 2024 COMMON ORDER: Crl.R.C. No.696 of 2024: 1 Petitioner preferred this revision case chattenging the judgment dated 13.10.2016 passed in Crt.A.No.579 of 2016 by the learned MetropoLitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years and atso to pay fine of Rs.1 ,000/-. Crl.R.C.No.697 of 2024: 2 Petitioner preferred this revision case chatlenging the judgment dated 13.10.2016 passed in Crt.A.No.528 of 2016 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to suffer simpte imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. 3 ln both the cases, the petitioner herein was tried by the learned Vl Additionat Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for an offence punishabte under Section 382 IPC in C.C.Nos.65 of 2015 and 64 of 2015. JTie gravamen of the charge in both the i 2 cases was that the petitioner atong with one anotltet committed theft of gold crains by snatching away them from tlre body of the de facto comrtainants in the respective cases. ln connection therewith seperate crimes viz., Cr.No.83 of 2014 and Cr.No.81 of 2014 were reqi:;tered and during the course of inlestigation the potice apprehe nded the petitioner and another whitt, they were trying to sel the stolen property rna jewete y shop at Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. Seizure panchanams were got reduced into writing by P.W.2 in both the cases. After :ornptetion of investigation tlrr: potice fited charge sheets in both the cases and the same were taken cognizance by the learned Vl A,jd'tionat Chief Metropolitan rVagistrate, Hyderabad, vide C.C.Nos 65 rf 2015 and 64 of 2015. 4 On an an,rlysis of the evidence adduced by the prrsecution in both the cases, the trial Court found the petitione-guitty of the offence punishabte under Section 382 IPC and senl.errced him to suffer simpte rrnprisonment for three years and also tc pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in [,oth the cases separatety, by giving; sel- off to the period of renrand atready undergone AS contenrptated under Section 428 Cr.D.C, vide judgments dated 11.5.2016. I l l I I I : 3 5 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred two separate criminal appeals vide Cr[.A.Nos.529 of 2016 and 528 of 201 5. The learned Metropotitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide judgments dated 13.'10.2016 dismissed the appeats. However, the learned Sessions Judge altered the Section of law to 379 IPC instead of 382 IPC as concluded by the learned trial Court, however, retained the period of sentence imposed by the triat Court, intoto. Hence these two crimina[ revision cases. 6 Sri T.Jaswanth Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases vehemently contended that the prosecution faited to prove the guitt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC as was decided by the learned appettate court and atso under Section 382 IPC as was decided by the learned trial Court. 7 lt is his predominant contention that the petitioner is accused in muLtipte cases and att the cases Were disposed of between 2016 to 2018, sentencing him to suffer imprisonment separatety. Though the petitioner had served the period of three years sentence, sti[[ he is tanguishing in jait for the reason that the sentences awarded against him were ordered to run consecutivety. Hence, in view of the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in I 4 Rajender Vs. State of Rajasthan, he contended that th,= sentences of imprisonmert ordered against the petitioner in Loth the cases may be orderec to run concurrently. 8 On the o trer hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the judgments impugned in these revision cases are based on sr:ur,<l appreciation of facts and law rnrJ that the petitioner is a habitual offender and hence the petit oner is not entitted to any cf the retiefs sought for in these revis'orrs. 9 ln view r f the above factua[ position and the complexity involved in the contention of the learned counse[ for thr: petitioner in both the ca:e's and atso since these two criminal r,rvisions are directed agains'. the judgments passed by both the r:c,urts below on same set of fa -ls and circumstances, and since the , pretitioner is one and the s,rme in both the cases, I deem it apprrepri3lg 1e dispose of thesr, two criminal cases by way of this cornnron order. 10 Firstty, c(lrning to the veracity of the evidenc: tvaitable in both the cases, I see no compelling reason to discard tlre evidence availabte on re,:()rd and atso to interfere with the w,:t[ considered judgments r:f tltr: learned Metropotitan Sessions Judge in both the appeals inasmu:h as the evidence of P.W.2 the panch witness to the seizure of :he stoten property from the Dossr:s:,'ion of the .,1 petitioner white he atong with another was trying to set[ away it at 5 Mehdipatnam is convincing, cogent and trustworthy. Nothing is eticited in the cross examination of this witness to impeach his evidence. So much so, the evidence of the de facto complainants in the respective cases is also betievable insofar as their identification of the property in the Court. Though the trial Court found the petitioner guitty of the offence under Section 382 lPC, the learned appettate Court after reappreciation of the evidence found the petitioner guitty of the offence under Section 379 IPC as the facts and circumstances of the case would be governed by Section 379 of IPC onty, however, retained the period of sentence imposed against the petitioner in both the cases. Hence, I see no ground much less any ptausibte to interfere with the judgments of the appettate court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. 11 Coming to the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sentences of imprisonment ordered against the petitioner in both the cases may be ordered to run concurrently instead of consecutivety, let me see whether the petitioner is entitted to such retief or not in the given facts and circumstances of the cases. I 6 12 The learred counsel for the petitioner has fited p,]rticulars of the crimes reg stered against the petitioner in detait, wherein he was convicted and sentenced for various offences and in different cases. The particutars of the said cases are shown h,:reunder to have a ctear r-rnderstanding whether the petitioner is entitted to the retief souglrt for or not. Sl.No. Cr.No C.C.No Conviction u/s Sentence Date 01 Convi(tic n Cou rt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 c'f 20 .l of PS. Hum r'/un Naga- 83 of20 4of PS. Hum l'/un Naga - 328 ol 2Cl4 of PS. Hum :,run Naga - 3f9 al 2( l1 of PS. Hum r'/un Naga - 554 of 2( 16 of PS. Sa ifa ba c 203 of 2 )16 of PS Sr ltan Baza 64of 2015 65 of 2015 7l of 2015 75 of 2015 987 of 2017 743 of 20t7 382 IPC 3years

11.05.20.6 382 IPC 3years

11.0s.20 6 382 IPC 3yea rs

11.05.20 _6 382 IPC 3years

11.05.20 6 411 IPC 2years 21,.06.2.O.6 392 IPC 3yea rs

17.07.2.O.8 VI AddI. CMM Hyd. VI AddI. CMM, Hyd. VI AddI. CMM, Hyd. VI AddI. CMM, Hyd rAddt. CMM, Hyd. II AddI. CMM, Hyd. 159 of 2( 16 of PS. Mircl owk 727of zo76 392 tPC 3years

27.1C.20 7 VIII AddI. CMM, Hyd. I I 13 The peti"-1oner herein seeking the very samc relief as contended in these two criminal revision citses, fited Crt.P.No.12940 tf 2073, before this Court and by <:rder dated

26.02.2024 thi: Court dismissed the said petition observing that 7 the petitioner is not entitted to the said retief inasmuch as he was shown to be a habitual offender. 14 When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, under Section 31 of Cr'P.C. the Court can direct that such punishments shatt run concurrentty. But in the case on hand, the petitioner was charged with and tried in two difference cases' of course for the same offence but in connection with different crimes registered on different facts and circumstances though the victims / defacto comptainants are also not the same. lt is settted principte of law that untess the Court directs that substantive sentences shoutd run concurrently, the normal principte is that sentences woutd commence one after the expiration of the other' i.e., consecutively, in view of Section 477 (iiil Cr'P'C which envisages that 'The general rute is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Sectio n 477 Cr.P.C. ln that view of the matter' the decision retied upon by the learned counse[ for the petitioner in lqram vs. State of Uttar Pradeshl does not come to rescue of the petitioner. Of course' Section 427 (iv) states that under Section 427 (1) CrPC the court has the po-y|e-r and discretion Jo t (zozl) : scc ta+ -1 ( i l I 8 issue a dire,:l ion that att the subsequent s3ntences run concurrentty wi1.h the previous sentence. But the lal.er part of the very same section envisages that "......however discne'tion has to be exercised judirirusly depending upon the nature of thc offence or the offences cornmitted and the facts in situation. Hovlever, there must be a specific direction or order by the c,)urt that the subsequent s€ ntence to run concurrentty witl'r tlre previous sentence" 15 ln the ca;r: on hand, the trial Court as wetl as ttre appetlate court has not eiven such a discretionary direction. Sin<e the relief claimed by t-he oetitioner in these two criminal casos was already struck down by this Court in Crt.P.No.12940 of 7)2\, I see no reason to take a different view in this regard. 16 ln view rf the above reasoning, lfind no irre,gularity much less any itlegallly in the impugned judgments. Acr:crrcingty, these two criminal revision cases are dismissed. 17 However ;ince the crimes were of the year 201,{, and since the petitioner was also convicted in other crimers, I deem it appropriate to take a lenient view in awarding lhr,r sentence. Accordingty, t he petitioner is sentenced to suff r:r rigorous - *imprisonment f lr two years in both the cases. 18 Miscetlaneous petitions if any pending in these two criminal 9 revision cases sha[[ atso stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.I.NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice E'V'Venugop (For His LordshiP kind Perusal) To, any) at HyderabadlOUTl '1 . The t\4etropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (with records if any) Z. fh" Vf Additional Cnief MetropJlitan Magistrate, Hyderabad' (with records if 3. i;; ccs to the pubtic prosecutor, State of relangana, High court Buildings +. ii," S"petintendeni, Chanchalguda Central Jail (By Special Messenger) 5. 11LRCopies O. fhtUnO"t Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Z. ihe Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad'-..- B. one Cc to Sri i. Jaswanth Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD CoPies Affairs, New Delhi HIGH COURT DATED:25102t2025 t ".1 ' r'll_r ? o i\ . .9 .\ \ts COMMON OFIDER \\ '\itl CRLRC.Nos.696 and 697 ot 2024 ,.4,..,. rH * l. --- ':t -';" \ .'\.'li-\, >l :?l ,_: / / I DISMISSING BOTH THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASES a t€('r> W