APHC010428222008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 1818 and 1821 of 2008 Between: Sandodi @ Sandani Amar Babu ...PETITIONER AND State of AP rep by PP ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1821/2008 Between: Narra Rambabu and another ...PETITIONER(S) AND State of AP rep by PP ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case Nos.1818 and 1821 of 2008 are heard and disposed of by this Common Order since the two revision cases are filed 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1818 and 1821 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2025 against one judgment in a Calendar Case, on the file of one Court, albeit petitioners are different. 2. The revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 04.12.2008 in Crl.A.Nos.90 and 91 of 2008 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole, confirming the conviction for the offence punishable Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) imposed by the learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Addanki, in C.C.Nos.63 of 2004 vide judgment dated 18.08.2008, by reducing the sentence of Simple Imprisonment from six months to simple imprisonment for three months. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Courts below erroneously found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ by believing the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. The Courts below wrongly relied on the evidence of stock mediators and urged to set aside the impugned judgments. 5. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioners have undergone nearly 7 days of incarceration. The offence was taken place in 2004; nearly 21 years have passed by. The petitioners are suffering from impoverishment. The 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1818 and 1821 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2025 petitioners’ right to speedy disposal of the criminal revision cases as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being infringed and urged to sentence the petitioner to which they had already undergone. 6. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court rightly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and convicted and sentenced the petitioners. There is no material irregularity. There are no legal infirmities either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial; there was no justification for this Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. There are no flagrant violations resulting in grave miscarriage of justice and urged to dismiss the criminal revision cases. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.Nos.90 and 91 of 2008 dated 30.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1818 and 1821 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2025 9. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1 wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under: “12. … We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re- appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice.The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. 13. ...In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re- appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1818 and 1821 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2025 miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has no right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may 2AIR 1951 SC 196 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1818 and 1821 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2025 be where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.” 12. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second Appellate Court, and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, D Stephens and K Chinnaswamy Reddy. 13. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 4, marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MOs.No.1 tractor and trailer. It is the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution that material object No.1 was found missing. In the course of the investigation on 29.02.2004, A1 and A2 were apprehended, while they were in possession of the stolen property. The tractor and trailer were seized in the presence of P.W.3 and L.W.4-Mattakoyya China Chenchaiah under the cover of Ex.P2 mediatornama. A1 and A2 admitted that they had committed offence along with A3 on 09.03.2004. A3 surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.1 made a report to the police about the theft of MOs.No.1 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1818 and 1821 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2025 vide Ex.P1 submitted to P.W.4. P.W.2 also corroborated the same. The petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as they were found in possession of the stolen property. Merely, because P.W.3 and L.W.5 acted as mediators in several cases, they cannot be branded as stock mediators. To prove that testimony P.W.3 is tainted with infirmities, no concrete information was elicited from P.W.3 in his cross-examination. There was no animosity established with proof to P.W.3 and L.W.5 with the petitioners. The evidence of P.W.3 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 and it has inspired the confidence of the learned Trial Court and also the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, these concurrent findings of guilty of the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ cannot be disturbed. There are no material irregularities. There is no flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice. There is no misreading of evidence and perverse findings. Therefore, the conviction for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be sustained. 14. With regard to the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of three months on the petitioners, the offence occurred in the year 2004. Nearly, 21 years passed by. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar4. This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal 4 Air 1979 SC 1360 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1818 and 1821 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2025 revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar 5 . The petitioners had already undergone 7 days of incarceration. The petitioners are suffering from impoverishment. There are no similar prior or subsequent adverse antecedents reported against the petitioners as fairly submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 15. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal revision case is disposed of maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ while sentencing the petitioners to suffer the sentence of imprisonment which they had already undergone. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 08.04.2025 KMS 5 2000 (1) BLJR 37 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1818 and 1821 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2025 164 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 1818 and 1821 of 2008 08.04.2025 W KMS