1 APHC010748082012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1842/2012 Between: 1. SHEIK ISSACK, S/O LATE SK. GAFOOR, OCC: COOLY, H.NO.7-137, NEAR ED GA MOSQUE, HJP HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, BHAGYANAGAR, GUNTAKAL, ANANTHAPUR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Through the S.H.O., Govt. Railway Police, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto allow the revision case and set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.150 of 2007 by II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada and as confirmed by reducing the sentence period from one year to 4 months in Crl.A.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the II Addl. Dist. Judge cum Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 2781 OF 2012 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 condone the delay of (153) days in filing this Crl.R.C., against the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.150 of 2007 by II Metropolitan Magistrate for 2 Railways, Vijayawada and as confirmed by reducing the sentence period from one year to 4 months in Crl.A.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the II Addl. Dist. Judge cum Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 2796 OF 2012 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 operation of the judgment dated 27.01.2011 made in C.C.No.150 of 2007 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada as confirmed by reducing the sentence period from one year to 4 months in judgment dated 18.01.2012 made in Crl.A.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the II Addl. Dist. Judge cum Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist., pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T R K S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1842/2012 The Court made the following Order: The instant Criminal Revision case has been preferred against order of conviction of petitioner under Section 411 of I.P.C by the learned Trial Court, which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Court below is illegal and improper. He further submits that learned Court below has considered erroneously both in factual and legal aspect to settle the matter. The learned Court below should not have placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to decide the matter. He further submits that PW.3 is a stock witness of the prosecution, who deposed several criminal cases on behalf of prosecution. Moreover, there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW.3, thus his evidence cannot be believable. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to place any document regarding the ownership of the stolen article of the complainant. He further submits that the present petitioner is a maker of gold, who used to make gold ornaments after receiving gold from shopkeepers, on the particular day, suddenly, police appeared and arrested him, he is not a thief or never received stolen the articles. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the petitioner. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court is erroneously. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is aged about more than 50 years. He is suffering from severe ailments now he is partially paralysis, at this juncture conviction cannot be ordered. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as confirmed by the learned 4 Appellate Court is well founded and well reasoned. He further submits that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The gold stolen ornaments were seized from the possession of the petitioner in the presence of seizure witness. PW.3 appeared before the learned Trial Court and deposed regarding the factum of seizure. He further submits that during the cross examination that the statement of PW.3 was not shaken. Therefore, the prosecution has sufficiently proved the charge against the present petitioner. He further submits that learned Appellate Court has gone through the submissions of the petitioner and is of consider opinion that discrepancy appearing in the statement of PW.3 is minor discrepancy by which prosecution case cannot be vitiated. He further submits that there is sufficient reasons for passing the order of imprisonment against the petitioner thus there is no chance to interference. 5. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Perused the entire case record. It appears that the police case was initiated on the basis of written complaint of PW.2 regarding theft of gold necklace by unknown offenders on 08.01.2007 weighing about 34 grams at the outside Vijayawada Railway Station. During the course of investigation, on receipt of credible information, on 23.03.2007 at about 4.00 pm., the investigating officer/PW.5 arrested the accused near Jaihind complex situated at Rajagopalachari Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada in the presence of PW.3 and LW.5. The stolen gold ornament was seized from the possession of the petitioner in respect of two crimes. Hence, charge sheet was submitted. 7. During the Trial, the prosecution has produced as many as five witness including the gold chain, finger rings, gold ear rings, gold necklace and black beads chain, which were marked as material objects. 8. PW.3 is the Mahazar witness, who deposed before the court supporting the prosecution case. The learned Trail Court on basis of the evidences on record and recorded conviction against the present petitioner. The learned 5 Appellate Court has also perused the materials and dismissed the Appeal by confirming the order of conviction. It has been raised before the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court from the defence that the investigation conducted by the investigation officer/PW.5 is concocted. PW.3 is a stock witness and there are several discrepancies. 9. In deciding the question raised by the defence, the learned Trial Court is of the opinion that defence did not cross examine the PW.5. Moreover, there are no severe discrepancies in the evidence of PW.3 and the same was again raised before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court has also view, that though during the course of investigation, seizure was affected. According to PW.3, about six gold items but only five gold ornaments were marked in this case as material objects. The learned Appellate Court is a view that this is a minor discrepancy. It further appears that the petitioner was arrested in connection with two crime cases and it has been noted by the police during seizure that in respect of two crime cases, the seizure was affected. For that reason, the seizure item may be more than the material objects in this case. It further appears that the discrepancy appearing in the statement of PW.3 are minor discrepancies, the view of the learned Appellate Court appears to be correct one. 10. In case, under Section 411 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the petitioner/accused had a possession of stolen ornaments knowingly to be stolen. The prosecution has seized the stolen article from the possession of the petitioner, which was proved by PW.3 and investigation report and charge sheet. The stolen articles were duly identified by the complainant by Test Identification Parade during the course of investigation. After completion of all exercise, when the prosecution has brought up all evidences regarding the possession of stolen article, thereafter the burden automatically shifted to the petitioner to say that he had no knowledge regarding the gold jewelry to be stolen jewelry. During the course of examination of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he is not given any account regarding his possession of gold 6 ornaments. Moreover, he has not placed any document regarding his capacity of extent of such gold ornaments as goldsmith. Reasons, thereby I find no justification to entertain the petition, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court appears to be justifiable. I find no merit to entertain the criminal revision case. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a bed ridden and it is not possible for the petitioner to carry out the order of conviction. He placed a memo containing medical papers to show the status of the petitioner, it appears from the MRI scanning report of the petitioner that his brain has been sufficiently damaged. It further reveals that petitioner was suffering from long ailments and it is not possible for him to comply punishment of imprisonment. Considering the entire aspect, the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court as well as confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is converted to fine of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount before the learned Trial Court within three (03) weeks from the date of passing of this order. 12. Under the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:20.02.2026 SSA 7 8 149 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1842/2012 Dated 20.02.2026 SSA 9