APHC010018312007 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: 1710/2007 Between: Satyala Durga ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: C.Sharan Reddy 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 04.11.2007 in Crl.A.No.119 of 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, confirming the judgment dated 29.06.2006 in C.C.No.1115 of 2005 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, finding the Revisionist guilty for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1710 of 2007 Dated 06.03.2025 sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Ismal, learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that there was no direct evidence or there was no eye witness to the occurrence of the offence. The learned Appellate Court wrongly placed reliance on the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and believed that the Revisionist had committed offence punishable under Section 380 of ‘the I.P.C’; the learned Trial Court ought to have seen that Ex.P1 is silent with regard to MOs.No.1 and 2; the Revisionist being a woman aged about 30 years old at the time of occurrence and a homemaker, lenience should have been shown in sentencing the revisionist. Alternately, it is submitted that the Revisionist had undergone more than two months imprisonment; nearly 20 years have passed by; she had suffered a lot of mental agony, she is doing cooli works; now she is aged about 50 years; she has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider the case of the revisionist sympathetically and urged to impose sentence to which she had already undergone. 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1710 of 2007 Dated 06.03.2025 reasonable doubt. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 380 of ‘the IPC.,’ there were no material irregularities committed by the learned Trial Court or Appellate Court and no miscarriage of justice caused to the Revisionist and urged to dismiss the revision. 5. 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. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.119 of 2006 dated 04.12.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court; Vijayawada, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. This Court in S. Venkat Reddy v. State of A.P1. held at para No.3 as under: “3. It is settled law that when a conviction is recorded by the Trial Judge and upheld by the first Appellate Court, re-appreciation of the evidence cannot be done unless there is miscarriage of justice.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand2 at para No.21, 22 and 23 held as under: “21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 CrPC. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party i.e. Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav3. Theat was the case in which the High 1 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 357 (AP) 2 (2004) 7 SCC 659 3 (2004) 7 SCC 665 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1710 of 2007 Dated 06.03.2025 Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below. 22. The revisional court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401 CrPC. Section 401 CrPC is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of an appellate court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 CrPC confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may by, “for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court” It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or the Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 CrPC conferring powers of an appellate court on the revisional court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 CrPC, read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power. 23. On this aspect, it is sufficient to refer to an rely on the decision of this Court in Duli Chand v. Delhi Admin4 in which it is observed thus: (SCC p.651, para 5) “The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to reappreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse.” 9. Although this Court has no power to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of determining whether the concurrent findings of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the Assistant Sessions Judge were correct, this Court, for the ends of justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice, can look into the evidence for limited purpose satisfying itself about the correctness of legality of propriety of any finding. 4 (1975) 4 SCC 649 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 663 : AIR 1975 SC 1960 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1710 of 2007 Dated 06.03.2025 10. To prove the guilt of the Revisionist, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W.1 stated that on 12.01.2005 at about 4 p.m, when he was in shop, the Revisionist had come to the shop and requested to show gold Mangala suthrams. When P.W.1 was showing gold Mangala suthrams, another customer came to the shop and he was attending to the other customer. In the meanwhile, the Revisionist went away. P.W.1 counted gold suthrams shown to her and found shortage of 2 gold suthrams. Immediately he questioned the Revisionist, who was going away, but the revisionist stated that she had not seen two suthrams. On search she was found with two suthrams in her purse. Later, the Revisionist was taken to police station and handed over to the police. P.W.1 gave Ex.P1 report. P.W.2 also deposed in similar lines. P.W-3 also testified in similar lines with P.W-1 and P.W.2. 11. Indeed, there are no eyewitnesses, when the Revisionist had stolen two suthrams. However, the gold suthrams shown by P.W.1 to the Revisionist were found short of two suthrams, and later two suthrams were found in the purse of the Revisionist. It shows that there was no direct evidence, when the Revisionist committed theft of two suthrams, but, she was found in possession of two suthrams which belong to shop of P.W.1. The learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 380 of ‘the IPC.,’ and found the revisionist guilty for that offence. The correct provision of law to be applied is not Section 380 of ‘the IPC.,’ but Section 411 of ‘the IPC’. Section 380 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ being a major offence with which the Revisionist was charged, as observed supra, it 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1710 of 2007 Dated 06.03.2025 was proved that the Revisionist had committed an offence under Section 411 of ‘the IPC.,’ which is a minor offence, so, she can be convicted under minor offence. Therefore, a person who is charged with major offence and the guilt is not proved for the major offence, but guilt is proved for minor offence she can be convicted under minor offence as per Section 222 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. Hence, the conviction under Section 380 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is altered to Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C’. 12. This Court directed the Jail Authorities of Central Prison, Rajahmahendravarm to submit the nominal rolls of the revisionist. It is mentioned that the Revisionist had undergone two months 12 days imprisonment. The antecedents of the Revisionist reveal that she was involved in several crimes and she underwent simple imprisonment in other cases. As per Section 427 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ this Court can order the sentence already undergone in other cases would run concurrently with the previous sentence. The Revisionist was 30 years old at the time of commission of the offence. The alleged offence occurred in the year 2005. The revision was filed in the year 2007. Nearly, 20 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 Bihar 5.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 5 Air 1979 SC 1360 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1710 of 2007 Dated 06.03.2025 Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar 6. As per nominal rolls submitted by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, the revisionist had undergone two months 12 days of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be subserved the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the Revisionist in other cases has been taken into consideration for imposing the sentence in the instant case. 13. Therefore, the revision is disposed of sentencing the Revisionist to suffer imprisonment which she had already undergone as under-trial prisoner, remand prisoner and convict prisoner in the instant case and previous sentences which she underwent as per Section 427 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 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 6 2000 (1) BLJR 37 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1710 of 2007 Dated 06.03.2025 189 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1710/2007 06.03.2025 W KMS