APHC010468102009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2084/2009 Between: Tanneru Sreenu ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P Rep By Its Public Prosecutor Hyderabad Through Sub Inspector of Police ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Challa Ajay Kumar 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 01.12.2009 in Crl.A.No.49 of 2007 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Krishna at Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 27.02.2007 in C.C.No.454 of 2001 passed by the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, was confirmed. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2084 of 2009 Dated 06.03.2025 2. The learned Trial Court found the revisionist guilty for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’), convicted the revisionist under Section 248 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there was no corroborating evidence that the revisionist had committed theft; P.W.2 and 3 who are the stock mediators; the requirement under Section 100 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and Section 27 of ‘the Evidence Act’ was not complied with; as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused the revision has to be allowed. Alternatively, it is submitted that the revisionist had undergone 27 days of imprisonment and he was aged about 26 years at that time; he was no habitual offender and more than 1 ½ decade passed by; lenience may be shown towards the revisionist and impose the sentence to which the revisionist had already undergone. 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the revisionist beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court rightly found the revisionist guilty for the offence charged and 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2084 of 2009 Dated 06.03.2025 appropriately dealt them by imposing the sentence. The concurrent findings are not required to be interfered and urged to dismiss the revision. 6. 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. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.49 of 2007 dated 01.12.2009, passed by the learned VIII District &Sessions Judge (FTC), Krishna at Vijayawada, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 8. 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 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2084 of 2009 Dated 06.03.2025 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 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.” 9. 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 o 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.” 10. 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 2AIR 1951 SC 196 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2084 of 2009 Dated 06.03.2025 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.” 11. To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 5, marked Ex.P1 to 7 and the material objects No.1 and 2. P.W.1 testified that moped was found stolen by the unknown person. Later the moped was found in the possession of the revisionist. A person who is in possession of the stolen article is guilty of Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C’. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court rightly found the revisionist guilty for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C’. There is no material irregularity in conducting the trial. There was no misreading of the evidence. There were no perverse findings. Therefore, the conviction under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be maintained. 12. In so far as imposition of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the learned Appellate Court modified the sentence of imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. While preferring the appeal 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2084 of 2009 Dated 06.03.2025 the revisionist had already paid fine amount. The offence of theft occurred on the intervening night of 20.08.2000. Nearly 25 years passed by. The revisionist was 23 years at the time of the commission of the offence. 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 27 days of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be subserved, if the sentence to which the revisionist had already undergone is imposed. 13. In the result the revision case is disposed of confirming the conviction under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C,’ while sentencing the revisionist to the sentence to which he 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: 06.03.2025 KMS 4 Air 1979 SC 1360 5 2000 (1) BLJR 37 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2084 of 2009 Dated 06.03.2025 190 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 2084/2009 06.03.2025 W KMS