C^i-. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. L AKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 404 OF 2009 Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment passed in C.A.No.35 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC). Markpur, dt.06-03-2009 filed against the CC.No. 22 of 2002 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, dated 27-03-2008. Between; Kopparapu Venkata Subrahmanyam, S/o Venkata Narayana, 33 Years R/o Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of AP, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Raja Reddy Koneti Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: .APHCOtp609922009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 404 OF 2009 Between: ...PETITIONER Kopparapu Venkata Subrahmanyam, AND ...RESPONDENT The State of AP Rep By Its PP Hyd Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RAJA REDDY KONET! Counsel for the Respondent: 1.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 06.3.2009 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2008 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Markapur, whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 27.03.2008 in C.C.No.22 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, was confirmed. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur found the revisionist guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1), 4 2 Dr.YLR.J Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2009 and 7(1) read with 56(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Funds Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and convicted the revisionist under Section 248(1) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under each count of Sections 3(1), 4, 7(1) read with 56(1) of ‘the Act’. The sentence under three counts was directed to run concurrently. 2. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Mr. Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court and also the appellate Court erred in convicting the petitioner for the offences under 3(1), 4, 7(1) read with 56(1) of Ihe Act’, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of month. Alternatively, it is submitted that the revisionist had already undergone more than 12 days in the prison, therefore urged to invoke the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short ‘the P.O. Act’). learned counsel for the petitioner and 3. one Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the accused and requested to dismiss the revision petition. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. Now the point for consideration is; 4. 6. Dr.YLR.J Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2009 i “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.35 of 2008 dated 06.3.2009, passed by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Markapur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material Irregularities? And to what relief?’’ 7. Learned Trial Court has examined as many as six witnesses - PW1 to PW6 and marked as Exs.P1 to P8 and found that revisionist guilty for the offences charged and convicted him. The appeal filed by the revisionist dismissed confirming the judgment of learned trial Court. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) V. Home Secretary State of Bihar^ it is held that right to speedy trial which includes hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 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 Biharl The right of speedy trial of the revisionist is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a reasonable time. Therefore, the delay is also one of the grounds to modify the impugned order. was 8. The learned Trial Court in judgment itself at para No.11 in page No.3 referred that I.P.No.36 of 2000 was filed on 14.9.2000 by the revisionist before the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapur showing PW1 to PW5 and 45 other persons stating that he was indebted to them in the chit business and he 9. 1 AIR 1979 SC 1360 2 (1999) 7 see 604 4 Dr.YLR.J Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2009 was also adjudicated as an insolvent by an order dated 30.8.2011 by the said Court. 10. Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the P.O. Act’ read as under: 3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition. When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, unde^ the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person is found guilty Is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4, release him after due admonition. or Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4. 4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or Imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty Is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless It Is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take Into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2009 (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. % (4)The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he Is released, to enter Into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants c: any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. or (5)The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned. 11. The revisionist had already undergone twelve days incarceration. As stated supra, the occurrence took place about 25 years ago. The revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 25 years. Therefore, it is appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to be reduced to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist. 12. 13. In view of the above, ends of justice would be met, if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. In view of the concurrent finding, the conviction cannot be interfered with and therefore it shall be maintained. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of while maintaining the conviction for the offences under Sections 3(1), 4 and 7(1) 14. 6 Dr.YLRJ _ Crl.R.O.No.404 of 2009 read with 56(1) of ‘the Act’ and convicted the revisionist under Section 248(1) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’, sentencing the revisionist to the imprisonment which he had already undergone. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S N OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC). Markpur, Prakasam District (with records if any) 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Markapur, Prakasam District 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nellore, S^SR Nellore District 4. One CC to Sri. Raja Reddy Koneti Advocate [OPUCl 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi [OUT] ' ' 6. The Section officer. Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi 7. Three CD Copies at at Stu PRK HIGH COURT DATED: 10/03/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.404 of 2009 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE WITHOUT COSTS