Date of reserved for orders : ----------- Date of pronouncement :09.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010523552009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 9th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 547/2009 Between: 1. GOONDALA RAMBABU, S/O BIKSHALU HINDU HUTMENT STATION THAOTA GANDHI NAGAR NUZVID KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep.by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P Hyderabad ...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 set aside the Judgment dt 17-07-2006 in C.C No.259/2003 passed by the II Metropolitan Magistrate(for Railways) Vijayawada as confrimed by the sessions Judge Mahila Court at Vijayawada vide Judgement dt 20-03-2009 in Crl.AppealNo.135/2006 and allow the Crimal Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 720 OF 2009 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Judgment dt 17-07-2006 in C.C No.259/2003 passed by the II Metropolitan Magistrate(for Railways) Vijayawada and to pass 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.547 of 2009 IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 728 OF 2009 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 sentence and concition imposed in CC.No. 259/03 dated 17.6.06 by the II Metropolitan Magistrate (for Railways) Vijayawada as conformed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada vide Judgment dated 20.3.2009 passed in Crl.Appeal No.135 of 2006 and consequently enalrge the petitioner on bail pending the above Crl.RC Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V HIMABINDU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.547 of 2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 547/2009 ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against Judgment dated 20.03.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada, confirming the conviction imposed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate (for Railways), Vijayawada, vide Judgment dated 17.07.2006 in C.C.No.259 of 2003. 2. The brief facts of the matter are that present petitioner along with six accused persons, was apprehended by the Railway Police at the Railway Station, having been found carrying some railway properties, which were seized under cover of panchanamas. It is the prosecution case that A1 to A6 confessed commission of theft of said property. C.C was ended in conviction against accused persons. Thereby, learned Magistrate concerned found all the accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966. Order of conviction was challenged before the appellate Court, which passed the impugned judgment confirming the conviction. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, apart from arguing on merits has submitted that the present petitioner is aged more than 50 years and he was convicted for a petty offence. Moreover, the offence was alleged to have been committed in the year 2003, and already 20 years have elapsed. The petitioner is the sole person who filed the instant Criminal 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.547 of 2009 Revision Case. Other accused persons have either died or have already served their sentences. So, some leniency may be shown to the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised no objection and submitted that the petitioner was first time remanded to judicial custody for three days (21.05.2003 to 23.05.2003). Thereafter, he was also in custody for five days (17.07.2006 to 21.07.2006) and finally he was in custody for 20 days i.e., from 20.03.2009 to 08.04.2009. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor placed the nominal roll issued by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Jails. 6. It appears from the nominal roll that the petitioner was in custody for 28 days. Learned Magistrate concerned has convicted present petitioner and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for six (06) months. The petitioner, along with his inmates was booked for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) RP (UP) Act. It has been alleged in the prosecution case that the Police seized some railway properties from the possession of A2 to A6. However, there is nothing in the prosecution case to show as to which property was seized from the possession of present petitioner, who was arrayed as A1. Further, it appears that the present petitioner, being an old aged person, has been facing criminal litigation for more than 20 years. 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.547 of 2009 According to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendran vs Sub Inspector of Police1, paragraphs 10 and 11 read as follows: 10. The incident took place on 16.02.1995 i.e. more than 26 years ago. It appears that appellant was throughout on the bail. The Trial Court after marshalling the evidence has recorded the conviction under Section 279, 338 and awarded sentence of imprisonment of six months and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337. 11. We do not find any error in conviction recorded by the Trial Court. The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case specially the fact that 26 years have elapsed from the incident, we are inclined to substitute the sentence of six months imprisonment under Section 279 and 338 into fine. Six months sentence under Section 279 and 338 IPC are substituted by fine of Rs.1000/- each whereas sentence of fine under Section 337 IPC is maintained. 7. In the present facts and circumstances, in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears that this criminal litigation is pending for more than 20 years, this is a fit case where conviction and sentence of the present petitioner may be modified. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is considered and allowed. The conviction of the petitioner (A1), as imposed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned appellate Court, is hereby modified to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner during pendency of this litigation. 1 2021 Supreme(SC) 298 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.547 of 2009 8. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:09.07.2026 JLV Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 7 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.547 of 2009 104 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 547/2009 Date:09.07.2026 JLV