1 Crl.R.C.No.1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ APHC010429012008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Between: Shaik Mabu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of AP Rep By Its PP Hyd ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: 2 Crl.R.C.No.1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: 1. The Criminal Revision Case Nos.1545, 1546 & 1548 of 2008 are heard and disposed of by way of this Common Order inasmuch as the petitioner in all the above three cases is one and the same, albeit the Calendar Cases are different, but on the file of the same Court. 2. The Criminal Revision Case No.1545 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby and whereunder, the appeal was dismissed. The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur, in his judgment dated 11.07.2005 in C.C.No.47 of 2004 found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and convicted him under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six (06) months. 3. The Criminal Revision case No.1546 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ challenging the judgment dated 23.09.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby and whereunder, the appeal was dismissed but the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment was reduced to six (06) months from three (03) years. The learned I Additional 3 Crl.R.C.No.1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur, in his judgment dated 11.07.2005, in C.C.No.52 of 2004, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and convicted him under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three (03) years. 4. The Criminal Revision case No.1548 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ challenging the judgment, dated 23.09.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby and whereunder, the appeal was dismissed. The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur, in his judgment dated 11.07.2005 in C.C.No.56 of 2004 found the petitioner guilty, for the offence under Section 411 of 'the I.P.C.,’ and convicted him under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six (06) months. 5. I have heard the arguments of Sri. V. Lakshmi Harish, learned counsel representing Sri. D. Kondanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds for the revision, submitted that in all the three Calendar Cases, the learned courts below failed to see that no independent witness was examined to prove the guilt of the petitioner. PW3 and PW5 in C.C.No.1545 of 2008 (PW6 and PW9 in C.C.No.1548 of 2008) are the official witnesses and in fact, PW4 in C.C.No.1546 of 2008 is also a stock witness to the police. He further submits that the Prosecution has utterly failed to prove the ingredients to constitute an 4 Crl.R.C.No.1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’. Prosecution even though could not prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond the reasonable doubt, the learned courts below erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Thus, urged to allow the revision cases. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner is aged about more than 65 years. The alleged offence took place more than 20 years ago. The petitioner has been suffering from mental agony because of the delayed disposal of the revision cases. The right of speedy trial includes speedy disposal of the appeal and revision. The petitioner has been in the incarnation either as remand prisoner, under trial prisoner or convicted prisoner from 23.09.2008 to 24.10.2008 i.e., one (01) month. Hence, urged to impose the sentence to the petitioner as already undergone. 7. Ms.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all the reasonable doubt. The learned trial court and also the learned court below rightly placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.2, 3 & 5 in C.C.No.47 of 2004, Pws.1 to 3, 4 and 7 in C.C.No.52 of 2004 and Pws.6 & 9 in C.C.No.56 of 2004, found the petitioner guilty for the offences charged and there are no material irregularities and misreading of evidence and urged to dismiss the revision. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the entire record. 9. Now the point for consideration is: 5 Crl.R.C.No.1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ “Whether the judgments in Crl.A.Nos. 185, 186 and 187 of 2005, dated 23.09.2008 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, are correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 10. 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 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.” 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 6 Crl.R.C.No.1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ 11. 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.” 12. 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 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 2AIR 1951 SC 196 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 7 Crl.R.C.No.1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ 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. 13. To prove the guilt of the petitioner in CC.No.47 of 2004, the learned trial court examined PWs.1 to 5, marked Exhibits P1 to P6 and M.O.Nos.1 & 2. On careful perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him. The learned appellate court also rightly confirmed the judgment of the learned trial court. PWs.3 & 5 are the official witness who discharged their duties as per law. Their evidence cannot be denied on the mere ground that they are official witnesses. Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of PWs.3 and 5 to spurn their evidence. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence of the prosecution by sitting as a second appellate court by invoking the powers under Section 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’. There are no irregularities much less material irregularities. Learned trial court and the appellate court properly appreciated the evidence and came to a conclusion that the petitioner had committed the offence with which he was charged. 14. Coming to the judgment in C.C.No.52 of 2004, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P8 and Mos.1 to 3. Learned trial court and the 8 Crl.R.C.No.1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ appellate court properly appreciated the evidence and came to a conclusion that the petitioner had committed the offence with which he was charged. 15. Coming to the judgment in C.C.No.56 of 2004, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P11 and Mos.1 to 4. Learned trial court and the appellate court properly appreciated the evidence and came to a conclusion that the petitioner had committed the offence with which he was charged. 16. In view of the concurrent findings in respect of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned courts below, the convictions under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be maintained. 17. With regard to the quantum of sentences, it would be appropriate to impose on the petitioner, the offence occurred in the year 2001-2002. More than 20 years have passed by. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right of speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HussainaraKhatoon (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. 18. The petitioner was in the prison for a considerable length of time. As per the letter addressed by the Superintendent of Jail, District Prison, Kadapa to this Court. It is submitted that either as remand prisoner, under-trial prisoner 4 AIR 1979 SC 1360 5 2000(1) BLJR 37 9 Crl.R.C.No.1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ or conviction prisoner, the petitioner underwent imprisonment in several cases. All these period of imprisonment shall run concurrently as per the Section 427 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’. The petitioner has suffered mental agony because of the delayed disposal of the revision cases. The petitioner submitted that he has wife, unmarried children. He has been suffering from ailments because of post Covid-19 complications. 19. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of, confirming the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ while reducing the sentences of imprisonments to which the petitioner had already undergone. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________________ DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated 18.03.2025 PKR 10 Crl.R.C.No.1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 488 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 1545, 1546 and 1548 of 2008 Dated 18.03.2025 PKR