APHC010332522009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 2063 and 2036 of 2009 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:2063 of 2009 Between: Thaneeru Venkata Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap Rep By Its PP Hyd ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRICRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2036 of 2009 Between: Nissankara Rao Poornachandra Rao And Another ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of A P Rep By PP ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CH RAVINDRA BABU 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 Dated 17.04.2025 Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The two Criminal Revision Cases are heard and disposed of by this Common Order inasmuch as the Calendar Case against the three petitioners is one and the same. 2. Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 have been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging judgment dated 24.11.2009 in Crl.A.Nos.106 and 137 of 2009 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, altering the conviction from Section 379 of ‘the IPC.,’ to Section 411 of ‘the IPC’, while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment and fine, imposed by the judgment dated 17.03.2009 in C.C.No.65 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, whereby and whereunder the petitioners in the two Criminal Revisions Cases were found guilty for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. 3. Sri. Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel, representing Sri. Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, and Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, the learned counsels for the petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.2036 of 2009 submit that there was no direct 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 Dated 17.04.2025 evidence to show that the petitioners have stolen the wire bundles; there was a time gap of one month in between the date of alleged offence and the arrest of the petitioners; P.W.1 did not give any descriptive particulars of the names of the accused in the complaint; no reliance can be placed on the alleged recovery; and there was no identification parade conducted with respect to the property, and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Cases. 4. Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the failure of the prosecution in establishing mens rea or knowledge that the property in question was stolen property. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there was an admission in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that the stolen property would be available in the market. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be attributed with the mala fide intention of possessing the stolen property and urged to exonerate the petitioners from the impugned judgment. 5. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Accused Nos.1 and 3 have been, indeed, underwent incarceration as remand trial prisoners and post- conviction prisoners for considerable length of time. As there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioners, it is urged that they may be sentenced to the imprisonment to which they have already undergone as the fine amount was also paid by them. 1(2022) 9 SCC 676 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 Dated 17.04.2025 6. Per Contra Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is well-thought and there was no misreading of evidence, no flagrant miscarriage of justice and no perverse finding. The petitioners suffered concurrent convictions, and appreciation of the evidence is not permissible in the revision cases and urged to dismiss the revision cases while requesting to consider the plea of the petitioners with regard to the quantum of sentence that could be imposed on the petitioners. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgments in Crl.A.Nos.106 and 137 of 2009, dated 24.11.2009, passed by the learned XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, are correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 9. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 5, and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 and M.Os.1 to 3. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the property covered under M.Os.1 to 3 was committed theft by known offenders. Therefore, he lodged a report with the police. Undoubtedly, there are no eyewitnesses, when the live electrical wire was stolen in a systematic manner. Further, it is evident that the property was seized from possession of Accused Nos.1 to 3 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 Dated 17.04.2025 and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was also recovered from possession of Accused No.5, on the information furnished by Accused Nos.1 to 3. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Kumar (supra) at paragraph No.23 held as under: “When we apply the legal proposition as propounded to the present circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant had the knowledge that articles seized from his possession are stolen goods. This essential element was not established against the appellant to bring home the charge under Section 411 of „the IPC.,‟ against him”. 11. The goods involved in Shiv Kumar (supra) were some utensils, which are ordinarily available in shops, whereas the property involved in the present case is live electric wire, which is not ordinarily available in the market let alone in shops. The material objects are exclusively used by the Electricity Department on making special order directly to Industries manufacturing them. The material objects were recovered from the possession of Accused Nos. 1 to 3. Accused Nos.1 to 3, in their examination under Section 313 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ failed to explain how the live electrical wire came into their possession. Although P.Ws.2 and 3, who signed Exs.P.6 to P.8 and P.9, partly resiled from their earlier version, their signatures were identified and admitted in the mediators’ report. It is not the case of the petitioners that P.W.1 lodged a false complaint with the police, even though no theft was committed. There is no animosity attributed in between P.W.1 and the petitioners. Although the learned Trial Court found the petitioners guilty under 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 Dated 17.04.2025 Section 379 of ‘the IPC.,’ the learned Appellate Court, having examined that there were no eyewitnesses to the commission of the theft of the material objects, found the petitioners in possession of the material objects and fastened the liability on them for the offence punishable under Section 411 of ‘the IPC’. Albeit, there is a time gap of nearly one month between the date of commission of the offence and the apprehension of the petitioners along with the material objects, it can be inferred that the petitioners were in possession of the stolen property, though not immediately after the commission of the theft, inasmuch as the stolen property is a peculiar one, which is not ordinarily available in the open market, but exclusively maintained by the Electricity Department. The live electric wire which the petitioners are not supposed to be in possession of it. The officers of the Electricity Department identified that the live electric wire was belonging to their department. Therefore, it can be concluded that the electric wire was committed theft, and it was found in possession of the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that the wire does not belong to the Electricity Department, nor is it the contention of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property. At any rate, this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot re- appreciate the evidence. Therefore, the conviction under Section 411 of ‘the IPC.,’ shall be maintained. 12. In regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners, it is submitted that the petitioners have undergone 77 days of incarceration on 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 Dated 17.04.2025 different cells, either as remand prisoners or convict prisoners. The offence was committed in the year 2006; nearly 19 years have passed by; right to speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar 2.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 Bihar3. The petitioners have been facing mental agony due to the time elapsed since the theft and the prolonged litigation. 13. For the above reasons, these two Criminal Revision Cases are disposed maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the IPC.,’ while sentencing the petitioners to undergo the imprisonment to which they have 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: 17.04.2025 RSI 2 Air 1979 SC 1360 3 2000 (1) BLJR 37 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 Dated 17.04.2025 105 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 2063 and 2036 of 2009 17.04.2025 RSI