APHC010519752009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE 24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1118 OF 2009 Between: 1. Merapuri Imaneal, S/o Mathaiah Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 2. Shaik Hussain Valli,, S/o Moulali, Coolie R/o Ramachandrapuram Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh A.P., Hyderabad. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., against the Judgment dated 01.11.07 in Crl.A.No.178 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the conviction and sentence of dated 23.06.05 in C.C.No.94 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kamalapuram. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1118 OF 2009 , S/o Mathaiah, Coolie R/o Ramachandrapuram Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 2. Shaik Hussain Valli,, S/o Moulali, Coolie R/o Ramachandrapuram Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa Dist. AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., against the Judgment dated 01.11.07 in Crl.A.No.178 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment made in Judgment dated 23.06.05 in C.C.No.94 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kamalapuram. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1118 OF 2009 , Coolie R/o Ramachandrapuram Village, 2. Shaik Hussain Valli,, S/o Moulali, Coolie R/o Ramachandrapuram Village, ...Petitioners utor, High Court of ...Respondent C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., against the Judgment dated 01.11.07 in Crl.A.No.178 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, imprisonment made in Judgment dated 23.06.05 in C.C.No.94 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judl. First 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1493 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (507) days in filing the above Crl.R.C., against the Judgment dated 01.11.07 in Crl.A.No.178 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment made in Judgment dated 23.06.05 in C.C.No.94 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kamalapuram. IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1528 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment made in Judgment dated 01.11.07 in Crl.A.No.178 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment made in Judgment dated 23.06.05 in C.C.No.94 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kamalapuram and release the petitioners on bail , pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case Counsel for the Petitioners: B R S KALYAN REDDY,LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, wherein and where under, they found the Petitioners to be guilty for offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C and accordingly, passed the order of punishment of imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-. 3 Brief facts of the prosecution case:- 2. PW-1 reported Police on 22.03.2004 that his HP Motors installed in the fields was stolen. On 04.05.2004 at about 4.00 a.m, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested. From their possession, one 5 HP motors were seized. During interrogation, they admitted that 5 HP motors 3 in Nos. were committed theft by them and it was given to Accused No.3 for disposal. On the basis of statement, Accused No.3 was arrested with missing 5 HP motors. Based on Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Assistant Panchayat Secretary, Kamalapuram on 10.05.2004 in the Panchayat Office, in which Accused Nos. 1 to 4 duly identified the motors. Hence Crime started. Submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners:- 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that though the stolen motors were said to be identified by the PWs 2 to 4 at Panchayat Office on 10.05.2004, but the motors had no identification marked. In the FIR, PW-1 does not state any specific identification marks of stolen motors. He submits that in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hiralal Babulal Soni v. State of Maharastra and Others1 has specifically observed that identify of the seized property being a stolen property has to be established to justify the conviction under Section 411 of IPC. 4. He further submits that only one motor was recovered from the possession of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and other motors are seized from the 1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 246 4 possession of Accused No.3. The alleged confession made by the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under the police custody cannot be said to be legal and acceptable under Section 27 of Evidence Act. He further submits that the learned Trial Court, as well as learned Appellate Court has erroneously proceeded to decide the matter. Thus, the order of conviction and sentence against the Petitioners are liable to be set aside. Submission of State:- 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Trial Court has categorically gone through the evidences on record that the Panchayatdars has sufficiently proved the prosecution case. There are no contradictions in the evidence of PWs. Hence, the offence against the present Petitioners has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that in Para 10 of the Judgment, learned Trial Court has observed the value of the evidence of witnesses. There are no illegality and impropriety in the order. Hence, there is no merit in the instant Criminal Revision. 6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Observations:- 7. Only two pertinent questions were raised before this Court with regard to illegality for the impugned order passed by the Courts below. Admittedly, there are concurrent findings for recording the conviction under Section 411 of IPC. It is admitted that to establish the conviction under Section 5 411 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the seizure properties are stolen property and it was seized from the possession of the Accused. In this case, it has been argued that PWs 2 to 4 has stated before the Courts below that they saw HP Motors in the Police Station. Test Identification Parade was conducted at the Panchayat Office. The issue is very pertinent regarding the identity of the stolen articles. The said issue was never raised by the defence by putting a question in cross examination to prosecution witnesses. 8. I have thoroughly gone through the evidences of PWs-1 to 4, they never interrogated about the identity of 5 HP motors, for the first time, this issue raised before this Court, which contains legal as well as factual aspect, hence, cannot be decided at this stage. Moreover, the ownership and identify of 5 HP motors were not an issue before the learned Trial Court. This Court makes it clear that if such questions were raised by defence, there may have some answer from prosecution witnesses, on the basis of which there may have determinations on merit by learned courts below. Now, in the absence of such factual determinations by learned Trial Court, it is not possible for this Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction. 9. Furthermore, when the motors were seized from the possession of Accused persons, they had no explanation to that effect. In that aspect, it is necessary to gone through the provision under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as follows:- 6 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations: The Court may presume – (a)that a man, who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession ; (b)….. 10. According to the said provision, if the person from whom some stolen property was seized, he must have an account for his possession. In this particular case, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are enquired under Section 313 of Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating substances appearing in the evidences on record. They did not place any account or explanation for the possession of those motors. Moreover, they did not claim seized motors to be their own. 11. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. Moreover, in this particular case, evidences of PWs 1 to 8 are so clinching and corroborated with each other, there exists no doubt that prosecution has successfully bring home the charge against Accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Related question with regard to identity of the seizure property/ stolen property has not been raised before learned Trial Court or before learned Appellate Court. Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction to go deep into merits of this case under the revisional jurisdiction. 7 Conclusion:- 12. Under the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is appears meritless and same is hereby dismissed. 13. The order of suspension of sentence passed during pendency of the Criminal Revision is hereby vacated. The Petitioners are directed to appear before the Jail Authority or before learned Trial Court to serve out the remaining portion of sentence within a period of six (06) weeks from today, failing which the Trial Court shall issue necessary order of warrant of arrest to comply the order. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 24.07.2026 KK 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1118 OF 2009 Date: 24.07.2026 KK