APHC010222482010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 101/2010 Between: Shaik Bajee ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: B.Paramesewara Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the judgment dated 12.01.2010 in Crl.A.No.152 OF 2007 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 13.06.2007 in C.C.No.117 of 1999 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur, was modified by altering the conviction from Section 379 of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.101 of 2010 Dated 20.03.2025 I.P.C.), to Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and confirmed the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven months. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri B. Parameswara Rao, the learned legal aid counsel submits that even though there was no sufficient material on record to impose conviction under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ the learned Appellate Court erred in convicting the petitioner as P.W.1 and 2 had not supported the case of the prosecution. Evidence of PW.4 and 5 is inconsistent with regard to the seizure of the alleged MOs and urged to allow the revision. The investigating officer did not conduct test identification parade of the accused. Alternatively, it is alleged that the petitioner underwent more than 54 days in prison; the alleged offence occurred on 12.11.1999 and requested to sentence the petitioner to the sentence to which he had already undergone. 4. Per Contra, Ms.P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Appellate Court rightly found that the petitioner was found in the possession of the stolen articles. Therefore, he was convicted under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C’. There was no misreading of the evidence and no material irregularities and urged to dismiss the revision case. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.101 of 2010 Dated 20.03.2025 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.152 of 2007 12.01.2010, passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. It is apposite to refer 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 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.101 of 2010 Dated 20.03.2025 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 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 miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “10. 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 to 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.” 9. 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 2AIR 1951 SC 196 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.101 of 2010 Dated 20.03.2025 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 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.” 10. In order to prove the guilt of the petitioner the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 5, marked Exs.P1 to 6 and MOs.No.1 and 2. In the evidence of PWs.3 to 5, it was clearly established that the petitioner committed the offence and the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 was corroborating by the documentary evidence and material objects. The petitioner was found in possession of the material objects/stolen property which was evidenced through Ex.P5. There was no misreading of evidence and therefore, the conviction under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ has to be sustained. 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.101 of 2010 Dated 20.03.2025 11. With regard to imposition of sentence, the offence occurred in the 1997, and nearly, 28 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 revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar5. As per nominal rolls submitted by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, the revisionist had undergone 54 days of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be sub-served, if the sentence to which the petitioner had already undergone is imposed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ while modifying the sentence of imprisonment to which the petitioner had already undergone. 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: 20.03.2025 KMS 5. AIR 1979 SC 1360 6. 2000(1)BLJR37 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.101 of 2010 Dated 20.03.2025 190 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 101/2010 20.03.2025 W KMS