APHC010637192014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1190/2014 Between: 1. MEKALA SUJATHA, W/O. VENKATESU, TELGAPAMULA, SANJEEVANAGAR COLONY, GOKAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP REP BYI TS P P, REP BYITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment dt. 03-6-2014 made passed in CrlA.No.44/2012 on the file of the III Additional District & sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada by confirming the sentence and judgment in CC.No.71/2009 dt. 17-01-2011 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 1870 OF 2014 Petition 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 passed in CC.No.71/2009 dt.17-01-2011 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, kakinada by confirming the same vide Judgment dt. 03-6-2014 passed in crlA.No.44/2012 on the file of III Additional District and Sesssions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada by enlarging the petitioner/ accused on bail, and pass. 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJU GUBBALA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1190 OF 2014 ORDER: Heard. 2. Petitioner was arrayed as an accused in C.C.No.71 of 2009, wherein charge has been framed under Section 379 or 411 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, after conduction of trial, found the petitioner guilty for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Against such order, the petitioner approached learned appellate Court, learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order. Hence, the instant criminal revision case. 3. To appreciate the argument made on behalf of the petitioner, it is required to note down the prosecution case in brief: On 06.05.2009, PW.1 was travelling in an auto from G.Mamidada towards Ramachandrapuram by keeping her gold jewellary box in her bag, by the way of such travelling through auto, some unknown persons had stolen away such jewellary box containing 12 tulas of gold ornaments. A complaint was made to the police on 11.05.2009, police apprehended petitioner on 14.05.2009 at Kakinada gold market center, Kakinada. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Firstly,_ there are an inordinate delay in lodging FIR. Alleged instant was happened on 06.05.2009 and the complaint was lodged to the police on 11.05.2009, prosecution case was silent about such inordinate delay. He submits that learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court was also silent regarding that point. The 4 judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court is illegal and improper as they have not discussed regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. Secondly, the statement of the mediator/PW.2 cannot be believed. He submits that the mediator was not present at the time of the alleged incident of theft, moreover, the mediator is not a local person, he is a VRO of other village. Admittedly, alleged seizure was effected at a market, several private person and shops are there, but none of the persons were cited as mediator in the instant case. He further submits that the conviction recorded solely on the basis of the mediator report is illegal. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objections and submits that though learned trial Court not discussed about delay lodging FIR, but on the basis of such delay and on the basis of non-identification of the petitioner, the charge under Section 379 IPC was not believed. He further submits that there are no explanation with the petitioner regarding possession of the stole articles, thus, the conviction under Section 411 IPC is maintainable. 6. Let me consider how far the delay in lodging FIR can be fatal for the prosecution case. 7. In a nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 06.05.2009 PW.1, while travelling in an auto, at that time some unknown offender has stolen the box containing gold jewellary. Admittedly, if at all factum has happened, PW.1 should have informed the police promptly. It is quiet unnatural in this case, the complaint was lodged after four days, admittedly there are no explanation in the prosecution case regarding delay in lodging such FIR, petition/complainant 5 (report) was also silent on that point. Non-filing i.e., prompt FIR is fatal to the prosecution case in respect of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC but as the stolen article was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, the conviction under Section 411 IPC maintainable. There may be certain reasons of delay lodging FIR, for that grounds, the prosecution cannot be said to the fatal in respect of Section 411 IPC. No circumstances was placed before trial Court or appellate Court or before this Court regarding the enimity between the petitioner and PW.1, thus, it cannot be said that the present petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. 8. On the above aspect, I am of the view that the delay of lodging the FIR is fatal for the prosecution case only in respect of Section 379 IPC in deciding merit, applicability of Section 411 IPC it appears that Section 411 IPC is the offence defined under IPC as receiving stolen property knowingly to be stolen. To prove the ingredients under Section 411 IPC, recovery of the stolen article from the offender is must. In this case, PW.2 is the seizure witness (mediator), who deposed that the police seized gold jewellary from the possession of the petitioner in gold market center, Kakinada. 8 9. An objection was raised by the petitioner9s counsel that PW.2 is the VRO of other village, not same locality, however, admittedly present when the seizure was effected in a market. It is well known that the market people, who are actually doing business in market are loath to give evidence in a crime case in support of the police, they are usually not intent to enter in consequences to give such evidence. For that reason, the investigating 6 agency collected the officials of the other locality, in this case VRO was collected to witness the seizure. 10 I have perused the observation of the learned Court below, who has observed that the stolen article was seized in presence of PW.2/mediator; merely, mediator being an VRO and not residing at the locality is not ipso facto disbelieved his version. Moreover, the petitioner herself did not have any explanation on such stolen articles which were recovered from her possession. Moreover, in her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, she has not disclosed that these gold ornaments owned by her. Thus I find no merit to entertain the revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Consequently, thereto any order passed by this Court granting suspension of sentence during the pendency, is hereby revoked. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within three (03) weeks from the date of passing of this order to serve out the remaining portion of sentence, failing which, learned Trial Court shall issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the present Petitioner to comply the order. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 11.12.2025 SPP 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1190 of 2014 11.12.2025 SPP