The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 397(1) of 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 operation of the sentence passed in judgment passed in Crl.A.Nd.753/2013 dated 05.08.2014 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences cum Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by confirming the judgment passed in CC.No.219 of 2009 dt.06.08.20 13 passed by learned Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and release the petitioner on bail. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. M V HANUITANTHA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI E.GANESH, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the follgwing: ORDER THE HON'BL ESRI] USTICE E.V.VENU PAL CR IMINAL REVISION CASE No.l 7 of 201^4 ORDER The present criminar revision case is fired by the petitioner/accused No.6 under sections 397 and 401 of cr.p.C., aggrieved by the judgment dated

05.08.2014 in criminal Appeal No.753 of 2013 on the file of the learned special Judge for Economic offences-cum-Vlll Additional sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and whereby the conviction and sentence dated 06.0g.2013 in CC No.219 of 2009 on the file of thq learned xII Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, imposed against the petitioner was confirmed.

2. Heard Sri V.Hanumantha Rao, rearned counser for the petitioner and Sri E'Ganesh, learned Assistant pubric prosecutor for the respondent/state.

3. cc No'219 of 2009 is a case registered against the petitioner and others for the offences under sections 457, 3Bo and 411 Ipc basing on the complaint/Ex.Pl lodged by pwl complaining theft of certain gold and silver ornaments on the intervening night of 3/4-03-2009. During the course of investigation, on 08.04.2009, pw9 along with his staff, apprehended accused I Nos.1 to 4 near srinath Jeweilers, Abids along with ornaments. The accused confessed that they sold 16 Kgs of silver and 1 Kg of gold to accused N0.5. A5 confessed that he sord sirver and gold ornaments to A6lthe petitioner herein. The petitioner was apprehended from his house at Ghansibazar and 7 gord k ingots weighing 500 grams,3 silver ingots weighing 7.55 grams in the presence of mediators were recovered under the cover of panchanama. A6/the petitioner confessed that he sold 75 grams of gold to A7 on 08.06.2009. Subsequently, on 08.06.2009 A7 was apprehended at his shop situated at Ghansibazar, Hyderabad. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid. Charges for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC were framed against accused Nos.1 to 4 and for the ofience under Section 411 of IPC against accused Nos.6 and 7 were framed. During trial, PWs.1 to 10 were examined, Exs.Pl to P30 and MQs.1 to 85 were marked. The accused denied the prosecution case. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 06.08.2013 in CC No.219 of 2009 found the accused Nos.2 to 4 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and accused Nos.5 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC holding that the evidence of PWs.5 to B corroborates with each other in respect of material aspects and established that MOs.1 to 84 were seized from the possession. of accused Nos.2 and 4 to 7 under, cover of'panchanama and the contents of confession-cum-seizure panchanamas of accused Nos.1 to 5 viz. Exs.P21, P23 to P26 and P2B confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused No.6 and Ex.P22 seizure report corroborated with the evidence oF the investigating officer/PW10 and PWs.5 to B, who are the mediators for confession-cum-seizure panchanamas of accused Nos.2 and 4 to 7. The trial Court further held }at the evidenc-e-qt LW10 also J J\ ,&.&5r". ' r ir.,!*rrattt. 3 corroborated the evidence of PW4 with regard to the conducting of scene of observation panchanama and rough sketch of the scene of offence i.e. Ex.P13 and P14. Further, evidence of PW3 disclosed that soon after theft the accused No.5.approached him and gave 9Kgs of silver items and as per his request, he melted the silver. It is also held by the trlal Court that under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, when the stolen property was found in possession of the person within a reasonable time, he has to give proper explanation and in the event of failure, a presumption comes into play that the said person has knowledge about the nature of th.e stolen property. Case against accused No.1 was split up and pending vide CC No.120 of 2011.

4. Aggrieved by the said findings, the petitioner herein/A6 and other accused viz. A2 to A5 and A7 preferred criminal appeals before the learned Special ludge for Economic Offences-cum-Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Hyderabad. The learned District ludge, vide common order dated

05.08.2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/A6 holding that accused Nos.1 tto 5 were in possession of the abnormal quantity of ornaments and 1 accused Nos.1 to 6 traded with the ornaments, stolen from the shop of PW1. However, the learned District Judge holding that the accused No.7, who was a goldsmith by profession, purchased 75 grams of gold for a reasonable price and hence, a presumption can be raised that without knowing the nature of the stolen goods, he purchased the same at a market price and hence, he is 4 I entitled for acquittal, allowed criminal Appeal No.758 of 2013, filed by the accused No.7.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner/A6, he preferred the present criminal revision case mainly contending that his case also stands on the same footage as that of accused No.7, no test identificaticn paradewasconducted,PWs.5and6,whoseevidencewastakeninto consideration by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, are the associates of complainant and their evidence cannot be a basis for convicting the petitioner and taht nothing rails recovered from the petitioneriA6'

6.ontheotherhand,learnedAssistantPublicProsecutorVehemently opposed the present petition mainly contending both the trial court and the appellate court have scrutinized the evidence available on record in right perspective and found the petitioner guilty and hence, the said findings cannot be interfered with.

7. \ This Court heard the rival contentions advanced on either side and perused the record. Allegation levelled against the accused No.6 is that he purchased the stolen goods and sold some part to the accused No'7' The appellate court holding that the accused No.7 purchased the ornaments at the market price without knowing the nature of the stolen goods. It is pertinent to note that same set of allegations and section of law is levelled against the petitioner also. .Record shows that he also purchased the ornaments from lhe .) accused and sold some paft to the accused No.7. There is no allegation that the petitioner is a party to the theft committed by accused Nos.1 to 4. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit extended to accused No.7 by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. B. In the result, this criminal revjsion case is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 05.08.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.753 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special ludge for Economic Offences-cum-Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, filed against thb conviction and sentence dated 06.08.2013 in CC No.219 of 2009 on the Fde of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Bail bonds of the petitioner, if any, stand closed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications if any pending shall stand closed. I t To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Special Judge for Economic Offences cum Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (With Records if any).

2. The Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri. M V Hanumantha Rao Advocate [OPUC]. 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

5. Two CD Copies. YJR/gh ,l -.'.. t' 2 g ,tut ,M J \i.. \..x ^ \..(i''ar'iii:'^\t ei4!iC, :l i-j -4, HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 I ORDER CRLRC.No.1647 of 2014 , ( /t /7I // CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS ALLOWED.