APHC010631872009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. CHILAKALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. SUNDRARAMAIAH, R/O. SRIRANGA PALEM VILLAGE, PIRANGIPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased against the Judgment and sentence passed by the learned the Sessions Judge, Guntur dt.22.07.2009 in Crl. and sentence passed by the I Addl. JFCM, C.C.No.78/2006 IA NO: 1 OF 2009 (CRLRCMP 1707 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A.No.19 Judgment and sentence passed by the Court of I Addl. JFCM, Tenali in C.C.No.78/2006, and release the petit Criminal Revision Case 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1236/2009 CHILAKALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. SUNDRARAMAIAH, R/O. SRIRANGA PALEM VILLAGE, PIRANGIPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal High Court may be pleased to file this Criminal Revision petition Judgment and sentence passed by the learned the Sessions Judge, Guntur dt.22.07.2009 in Crl.A.No.19/2008, by confirming the Judgment and sentence passed by the I Addl. JFCM, TENALI, dt.24.01.2008 (CRLRCMP 1707 OF 2009 ition under Section 151 CPC 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 of imprisonment passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A.No.19 of 2008 dated 22.07.2009 by confirming the Judgment and sentence passed by the Court of I Addl. JFCM, Tenali in C.No.78/2006, and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHILAKALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. SUNDRARAMAIAH, R/O. SRIRANGA PALEM VILLAGE, PIRANGIPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court ...RESPONDENT praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision file this Criminal Revision petition Judgment and sentence passed by the learned the Sessions .No.19/2008, by confirming the Judgment .24.01.2008 in 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 of imprisonment passed by the Court of the Sessions of 2008 dated 22.07.2009 by confirming the Judgment and sentence passed by the Court of I Addl. JFCM, Tenali in oner on bail pending disposal of the 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARUN BYREDDY 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case, filed under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), is preferred by the petitioner/accused, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2008, on the file of Sessions Judge, Guntur (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court), challenging the judgment, dated 24.01.2008, whereunder the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) vide Judgment dated 22.07.2009 in C.C.No.19 of 2008 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. By Judgment dated 24.01.2008 in C.C.No.19 of 2008, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (02) years for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC. 3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the prosecution, as evident from the charge sheet, is as follows: (a) The accused went to the taxi stand near N.V.R. Bridge in Tenali on 12.12.2005 at around 1:00 PM, posing as an LIC officer, and hired an Ambassador car (No.AP 10 7080) under the pretext of travelling to Tadikonda for official work. PW.3, T. Teja, was the owner of the car, 3 and PW.1, P. Prasad, was its driver. At that time, the owner was not present. When the taxi reached Umesh Chandra Statue at Chenchupet, Tenali, the accused asked PW.1 to purchase a beer from a nearby liquor shop. As PW.1 stopped the car and went to buy the drink, the accused absconded with the vehicle. Upon returning and finding the car missing, PW.1 informed the owner, and both searched for it in vain. Subsequently, PW.1 lodged a report (Ex.P1) with PW.12, Y. Srinivasarao, S.I. of Police, Tenali, who registered the case and commenced the investigation. (b) During the investigation, PW.12 arrested the accused on 10.01.2006 in the presence of PW.7 Y. Narasimharao and PW.9, M.Venkateswara Rao, and recovered the stolen car from his possession under a panchanama (Ex.P5). On 24.01.2006, PW.11 Smt. C. Sumalatha, then II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, conducted a Test Identification Parade at the Sub-Jail, Tenali, on police requisition. In the parade, PWs.1, 8, and 10 identified the accused as the person who hired and absconded with the taxi. She recorded the proceedings in Ex.P11. Upon completion of the investigation, PW.13 S. Raghavarao, Inspector of Police, Tenali Urban Circle, filed the charge sheet against the accused. 5. The Trial Court took cognizance under section 379 and alternatively 411 of the IPC against the accused. Upon the appearance of the accused, copies of the prosecution documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr. P.C. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. A charge under Section 379 and alternatively 411 of IPC against the accused is framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of 4 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the same and stated that he had no defence witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and pleaded not guilty. 7. The Trial Court, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence, as stated supra vide Judgment dated 24.01.2008 in C.C.No.78 of 2006. 8. Felt aggrieved by the aforementioned conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2008 before the 1st Appellate Court, and the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2008. 9. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner/accused, and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State. 10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petition is pressed only to the extent of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, and not against the conviction under Section 379 IPC. He requested modification of the sentence, contending that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family. 11. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court”. 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 5 12. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita V. State of Assam2, held that: 9. ....if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re- appreciation of evidence by the third Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher Court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence. 10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. 8. ....The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure." 13. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill V. The State of Chhattisgarh3, thus: "8. ....The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C') vests jurisdiction 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. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings." 14. The evidence of PWs.1 and 3 establishes the theft of Material Object No.1 (MO.1). PW.8, who participated in the test identification parade, identified the accused as the person who approached them seeking to hire a taxi. PW.1 testified that he had engaged his taxi for the accused on hire. PWs.6 and 8, both taxi drivers, categorically testified that it was the accused who hired PW.1’s taxi on the day of the incident and subsequently committed the theft. They further stated that on 12.12.2005, the accused came to the taxi stand, bargained with them for a fare, and ultimately finalized with PW.1, taking his vehicle for a trip to Thadikonda. 2 (2009) 13 SCC 330 3 AIR 2022 SC 3283 6 15. It is not in dispute that PW.3’s Ambassador car was stolen on 12.12.2005 at approximately 01:00 PM by the accused, who had hired it for travel to the Thadikonda area. Nothing in the cross-examination of PWs.6 and 8 casts doubt on their credibility or the identification of the accused. Moreover, it is not the defence's case that PWs.6 and 8 bore any prior animosity towards the accused that might have motivated false testimony. The evidence of PW.12, the Investigating Officer, establishes that the accused was arrested on 10.04.2006, and MO.1, the stolen vehicle, was recovered from his possession in the presence of independent witnesses, PWs.7 and 9. There is no material on record to suggest that the Investigating Officer planted the stolen property or falsely attributed its recovery to the accused. The 1st Appellate Court rightly observed that there is no legal bar to relying on the testimony of an Investigating Officer when it is otherwise credible and corroborated. Further, the evidence of PW.11 is consistent with and supported by the testimonies of PWs.1, 6, and 8. The accused has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for his possession of the stolen property. 16. In light of the settled legal position, upon considering the judgments, this Court finds that both courts, after recording cogent reasons, concurrently held that the accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 379 of the IPC. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the 1st Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and assessed the material placed before it in a proper and correct perspective. 17. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel on both sides, I see no illegality, error, or perversity in the findings of the Courts below regarding the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC. 18. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Does the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrant any interference? 7 POINT: 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has sought a modification of the sentence, contending that further incarceration would be excessive and unjust, given that the accused had already served a significant portion of the sentence. 20. It is a well-established principle of sentencing policy that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven offence. The sentence should be neither nominal nor excessive. What constitutes a proportionate sentence must be determined on a case-by-case basis, having due regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each matter. 21. While ordering the sentence, the facts and circumstances of each of the case before the Court has to be appreciated on its own merits and the circumstances in one criminal case cannot be taken as a binding precedent in so far as the order on sentence in another case, unless the facts and circumstances of each of the instances corresponds to each other or exactly tallies. But always, the Court must bear in mind the cardinal principle that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, and it should not be excessive or exorbitant. 22. True that in the instant case, the petitioner / accused has been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC for the theft of the Ambassador car bearing No.AP10 7080, belonging to PW.3, of which PW.1 was the driver. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the offence occurred in 2005, when the accused was approximately 27 years old, and that he is now around 47; he has a family who depend solely on him for support. The Trial Court’s Judgment reflects that the petitioner was in pre-trial detention from 10.01.2005 to 26.05.2006 (136 days) and 02.01.2008 to 24.01.2008 (22 days), totalling 158 days. 8 24. Considering the passage of time since the incident, the absence of any further criminal involvement, this Court is persuaded to carefully weigh the implications of imposing further imprisonment at this stage. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could disrupt the accused's personal life and adversely affect the welfare of his family, who may be dependent on him. After giving my anxious consideration to the question of reduction of sentence as requested on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that some consideration should be shown to the petitioner in the matter, specifically concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to modify or limit the imprisonment imposed on the accused, balancing the interests of justice with the mitigating factors that have emerged over time. 25. Considering the age of the accused, economic condition, and the passage of time since the accident, this Court finds that the sentence imposed against the accused for the offence alleged is on the higher side and can be considered excessive. Therefore, this Court finds it necessary to interfere with the impugned Judgments of both the Courts only to the limited extent of reducing the quantum of sentence, to ensure that the punishment remains reasonable and proportionate to the proven guilt. 26. In terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C., any period of detention undergone by an accused during the investigation, inquiry, or trial of the same case must be set off against the term of imprisonment ultimately imposed. However, considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment should be modified to the period already undergone, which, in the circumstances, would meet the ends of justice. However, while upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the 1st Appellate Court for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing the substantive sentence of 9 imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused. Accordingly, the Point is answered. 27. In the result, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed. While the conviction of petitioner / accused for the offence under Section 379 of IPC is upheld, as rendered by the 1st Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.19 of 2008 dated 22.07.2009 affirming the Judgment of the Trial Court in C.C.No.78 of 2006 dated 24.01.2008, the sentence of simple imprisonment imposed on petitioner / accused is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the 1st Appellate Court stands reduced to that duration. The remainder of the Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court shall remain undisturbed. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall stand discharged. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court, along with their respective records, forthwith. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTCIE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 19.09.2025 SAK 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1236 of 2009 Date: 19.09.2025 SAK