K.Appala Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

:SRI. G NARENDER RAJ Counsel for the ResPondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) The Court made the following : ORDER I. I i I l i j I { i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISIoN CASE No. 41 OF 2O1O ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 4Ol of Cr.p.C., aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.01.2010 in Crl.A.No. 109 of 2009 passed by the Metropolital Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short ,appellate Court'), confirming the Judgment dated 26.O2.2OOg in C.C.No.446 of 2005 passed by the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad (for short .tria1 Court,).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Sub Inspector of Police, Trimulgherry Police Station, filed charge sheet against the petitioner-accused, for the offence punishable under Section 42o I.P.C. alleging that the petitioner is an Ex_Naik in the Army. On

09.01.2005, Rama Sharkar frled a complaint before the police stating that a recruitment rally was being held at Docca Stadium, Secunderabad, for the Assam Rifles from 05.01.2005 to 1O.01.2OO5. On 09.O1.2005, the accused contacted the Assam Rifles Vigilance staff, LWs.6 and T, at L2.OO hours at Docca Stadium along with two caldidates and.look Rs.20,000/_ as an r{ 2 EW,J CRLRC 41 2OIO advance from the candidates by trespassing into Docca Stadium to strike a deal. The vigilance staff and Police of Trimulgherry laid a trap, and he was nabbed along with Rs.i9,OO0/- in cash and a Nokia mobile phone. The petitioner approached K. Krishna Rao/LW-2 and D.Venkata Phanindra Babu/LW-3, promising them jobs upon payrnent of Rs.2O,OOOI- each, and collected money and certificates from them. Therefore, the accused is liable for the offence punishabie under Section 42O I.P.C. After completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet the same was numbered as C.C.No .446 of 2005 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs. I to 5 were examined and Exs.P. 1 to P.6 were marked besides marking material objections MO.l and MO.2. In defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

4. After appreciating oral and documentar5r evidence available on record, the trial Court, uidejudgment d'ated' 26.02.2009 in C.C.No.446 of 2005, found the petitibner/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 42O I.P.C arrd convicted the p etitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous irnprisonment J EW,J CRLRC 41 2O1O for a period of two years and a-lso directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in case of default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2OO9 on the hle of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, HJderabad. The appellate Court, re-appreciation of evidence and the material available on record, dismissed the appeal uide judgment dated 06.01.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2OO9, confirming the judgment dated

26.02.2009 in C.C.No.446 of 2005 passed by the tria-l Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

6. Heard Sri G. Narender Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ State and perused the materia,l available on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective judgments convicting and sentencing the I \ t 4 EW,J CRLRC 41 2O1O petitioner as stated supra. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same and contended that both the Courts, upon appreciating oral and documentar5r evidence available on record in right perspective, passed their respective judgments and hence, interference of this Court with the well considered judgments of both the Courts below are unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision. 9 A perusal of the evidence and the material available on record reveals that both the Courts below have concurrently found that the revision petitioner/ accused took money with the promise of providing emplol'rnent' This constitutes a false promise made with dishonest intention. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted as far as conrriction recorded against the petitioner/accused' But with i,: '- .i, regard to the Si:ntence, it is to be seen that the offence took place in the year, 2005 and this revision was filed in the year 2O1O i'e' after a lapse of 5 years and the same is pending till date' Therefore, taking into consideration the mental agony arrd hardship suffered by the petitioner/accused for all these years, 5 EryT CRLRC 41 2OIO this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused while maintaining the fine of Rs.SOO/- imposed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IpC. lO. Accordingly, this Criminal Revislon Case is dismissed, while confirming the conviction imposed by the tria-l Court, which was confirmed by the appellate Court, however, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sha_ll stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUW REGTSTRAR sectffiorrrcen l.TheCourtofthetvtetropolitanSessionsJuduge'Hyderabad.

2.TheCourtoftheXlAdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrate' Secunderabad.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI G. NARENDER RAJ' Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies pcsd/PSL Yr- b- I i -(HE s, ,1ii B ( o { J 2 3 AUG .3r: 1r .-i" .,,/ HIGH COURT DATED:1210212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.41 of 201O DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE WITH CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS 8r{+&