APHC010283642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI I MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 569 OF 2024 Revision case filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS aggrieved against the judgment dated 19.03.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.51 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. confirming the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore in C.C.No.2505/2019, dt.26.08.2022 . Between: Kathi Manindra @ Mani, S/o. late Lakshmaiah, Aged about 31 R/o. Pedacherukuru village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. years. ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Sections 397(1) of Cr.P.C., and 438(1) of BNSS, 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 in Judgment dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Hon’ble IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore in Crl.A.No.51 of 2022 in confirming the sentence passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Nellore in C.C.NO.2505 of 2019, .-peTidmg disposal of the revision. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER : 1 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 APHC010283642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 569/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Kathi Manindra @ Mani, AND ...RESPONDENT The State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner: C. Subodh Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the concurrent conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.’), by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, in CrI.A. No.51 of 2022 dated 19.03.2024, whereby and whereunder the judgment of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, C.C. No.2505 of 2019 dated 26.08.2022, convicting the petitioner under in 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 Section 411 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment, was confirmed. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and 2. the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3 Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, submits that the learned Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence from the correct perspective and has also misapplied the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). By wrongly placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.3, 5, and 6, coupled with Ex.P3, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. It is contended that the learned Appellate Court ought to have acquitted the petitioner, and therefore, he urged to allow the criminal revision case. 4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the alleged incident occurred in the year 2019, and the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than 13 days. There are no adverse antecedents reported against him. The petitioner voluntarily offers to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation by way of penance. He is a poor person eking out his livelihood by doing small coolie work now after the alleged therft, and he has a wife, children, and aged parents who are dependent upon his meagre income. Hence, it is urged that the matter may be considered and disposed of on humanitarian grounds 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the learned Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence 3 Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 adduced before the Trial Court and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed therein. It is submitted that there is no misreading of evidence, no flagrant miscarriage of justice, and no perverse findings. Hence, she urged dismiss the criminal revision case. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. the Now the point for consideration is; "Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.51 of 2022 dated 19.03.2024 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities ? And to what relief?” While deciding a criminal revision case filed against acquittal of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar'^^erein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under; 7. 8. “73. ... 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 revisionaj jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the Hiah Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from t_he trial Court. In the absence of manifest illeQalitv resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revislonal jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. (2002) 6 see 650 4 Dr.YLR, J < Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 In State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale^, at Paragraph No.2 it is held as under: 9. “...Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with . the concurrent findings of the courts below specially by re appreciating the evidence in its revisionaljurisdiction....” In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh^, at Paragraph Nos. 10 to 13 it is held as under: 10. “10. While it is true and now v^ell-settled in a long catena of cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary - this discretion, however, as is popularly informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion which stands "informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system" - resultantly only in the event of a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not to be called for. It is not to be lightly exercised but only In exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In Nosibolla; Logendranath Jha and Chinnaswamy Reddy (supra) as also in Thakur Das (Thakur Das (Dead) by LRs v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ann, 1978 (1) see 27) this eourt with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in the event of there being a failure of justice there can said to be no limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power. 11. The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it. On its administrative side, the power is known as the power of superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of revision. The High Court can at any stage even on Its own motion, if it so desires, and certainly when illegalities or Irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice call for the records and examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and revisions and interlocutory applications -so also Its right to ^AIR 1993 SC 1126 ^AIR 2002 SC 2229 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court, however, under the provisions of Section 401 is very much circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid, we do feel it expedient to record that in the contextual facts presently under consideration before this Court, the High Court cannot but be said to have exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order of acquittal. 13. In any event, writing of a fresh judgment as directed by the Court is rather a significant departure in the normal disposal of revisional applications. Opportunities have been given for further argument but would that by Itself tilt the scale - this aspect of the matter has already been noticed earlier, as such we need not dilate thereon excepting recording that an extremely significant departure from the normal form of Court orders stands challenged in this Court. ” Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a second appellate court. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke it’s 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, Jagannath Chowdhary and Appa Babu Ingale. However, this Court is not denuded of its powers to examine whether judgments impugned are correct, legal and proper with respect to their findings, sentence or even judgment and there are any material irregularities. If there are manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion. 11. 6 Dr.YLR, J ^ Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 12. As seen from the record, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked Exs. PI to P6 and M.Os.1 to 3. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. P.W.1, the de facto complainant, testified that he is the Managing Partner of Subhamasthu Shopping Mall, VRC Centre, Nellore. The petitioner/accused had been working as an accountant in their showroom since 2013 till the date of offence detention. He deposed that on 09.08.2019, at about 8:55 a.m., on the 4th floor of the showroom, they noticed that the locks of the entrance leading to the terrace had been broken open, and the door of the locker room in his cabin was also found broken by some unknown persons. On verifying the locker room, he found that Rs. 16,00,000/-, which had been kept in one of the lockers, was missing. He thereafter lodged a report with the police. P.W.2, an employee of the shopping mall, testified that he was working as the Head Cashier, and that the petitioner/accused was the Accountant in the showroom. He corroborated the testimony of P.W.1 in material particulars. P.W.3, an independent witness, deposed that he was the Office Manager at Yeshpart Hotel, Nellore. He stated that he received a phone call from the Accountant of Subhamasthu Shopping Mall enquiring about the availability of a room. P.W.3 asked the said Accountant to produce his Aadhaar card and other identity particulars in order to book a room. The 13. 14. 15. 7 Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 I Accountant then took a room in the hotel, but left the same later that day. Later, the said Accountant came along with the police to the hotel room. P.W.4, another employee of the shopping mall, deposed that he was working as Network Administrator for Hardware, Software, and CC Cameras in the shopping mall. On 09.08.2019, on receiving a phone call from the staff regarding the occurrence of theft, he verified the CCTV footage and found the petitioner/accused moving in suspicious circumstances. He further stated that though the petitioner/accused was on leave on that day, he was present in the shopping mall under suspicious circumstances. P.W.4 handed over the CD containing the CCTV footage to the police. P.W.5, an important witness to the arrest of the petitioner, deposed that at the request of the police, he acted as a mediator along with one Ch. Vijaya Kumar (L.W.8). While effecting the arrest of the petitioner, they went to Annapurna Apartment, Balajinagar, Nellore, where the petitioner was apprehended by the police. On enquiry, the petitioner voluntarily confessed to having committed theft of Rs.16 lakhs from Subhamasthu Shopping Mall, out of which he kept Rs.15 lakhs in Room No.4007 of Yashpark Hotel, Nellore, and retained the balance in his pocket. He admitted that he had spent Rs.6,000/- towards his vices and room rent. The police seized Rs.94,000/- from his possession under cover of a mahazarnama. He further deposed that, based on the confession of the petitioner, they proceeded to Room No.4007 at Yashpark Hotel, Nellore, where the petitioner produced a cover belonging to 16. 17. 8 Dr.YLR, J k Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 Subhamasthu Shopping Mall containing Rs.15 lakhs along with his clothes. The police seized the cash and clothes and arrested the petitioner. P.W.6, the Investigating Officer, testified that pursuant to registration of the crime, he took up investigation, examined witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared the observation report and rough sketch, and seized the 18. CCTV footage. He also participated in the process of the arrest. Undoubtedly, the confession given by the petitioner before the police is 19. inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity ‘the Act’). However, pursuant to the disclosure made by the petitioner, he himself led P.W.5 and the other mediators to the place where the remaining stolen amount of Rs.15 lakhs was kept, and the same was recovered and seized. This part of the evidence is admissible under Section 27 of ‘the Act’. Of course, there is no direct evidence to establish that the petitioner 20. himself committed the theft of Rs.16 lakhs from Subhamasthu Shopping Mall. However, the petitioner was found in possession of Rs.94,000/- in his pocket and Rs.15 lakhs in Room No.4007 of Yashpark Hotel, Nellore, which is highly relevant. The Trial Court also concluded that the property seized was stolen property belonging to P.W.I’s shop, and it was found in the possessionof the petitioner at the time of his arrest. Therefore, the Trial Court did not convict the petitioner under Sections 457 and 380 of the I.P.C., but found him guilty under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C’. It is on record that the petitioner was found in possession of Rs.94,000/- on 09.08.2019, while the offence had taken place 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 08.08.2019. Immediately on the next day, the police apprehended the petitioner and seized Rs.94,000/- from his possession, and at his instance, Rs.15 lakhs was recovered from Yashpark Hotel. The petitioner, being ordinary accountant, did not claim the amount as his personal property. P.W.1 had lodged a complaint that Rs.16 lakhs was stolen, and the CCTV footage showed the petitioner moving suspiciously. Within one day of the offence, an amount of Rs. 15,94,000/- was recovered from the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the presumption under Section 114(a) of ‘the Act.,’ is not applicable, is unsustainable for the obvious reasons mentioned above. There considerable delay between the commission of the theft and the recovery of the stolen property from the possession of the petitioner and his constructive possession in Yashpark Hotel. The learned Trial Court rightly found the petitioner guilty, and the learned Appellate Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence. on an 21. was no 22. In fact, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court passed the conviction on correct lines., provides for punishment of up to three years’ imprisonment, whereas the petitioner was awarded only six months’ imprisonment, though the amount involved in the theft was huge. The petitioner is aged about 31 years and has a wife, children, and aged parents dependent upon him. Being an accountant, he was under an obligation to maintain utmost confidentiality and trust reposed in him by the 23. 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 management of the shopping mall. The conviction recorded by the learned therefore stands confirmed. However, with regard to the Appellate Court sentence of imprisonment, this Court is of the view that the same requires modification. The petitioner is a first-time offender aged about 31 years, and no adverse antecedents are reported against him. Section 411 of the I.P.C. provides for punishment either with imprisonment or with fine. In these circumstances, imposition of six months’ imprisonment appears to be on the higher side and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court is of the opinion that imposition of a fine of Rs.20,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Out of the said fine amount, Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the management of the shopping mall as compensation, and the remaining Rs. 10,000/- shall be remitted to the Government Treasury. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. However, the sentence is 24. modified. The petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) within one month from the date of this order before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the de facto complainant, the same shall be remitted to the management of the shopping mall, and the shall be remitted to the Government Treasury. In remaining Rs.10,000/- default of payment of the said fine within the stipulated period, the petitioner 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2024 Dated 01.09.2025 shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months, as confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore is directed to take necessary follow-up steps. 25. 26. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending. shall stand closed. SDI- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, (with recordis) 2. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 3. One CC to Sri C.Subodh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 6. Two CD Copies GPC TAC 0 \ HIjGH COURT DATED: 01/09/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 569 OF 2024 DISPOSING OF THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE