Date of reserved for orders : NIL Date of pronouncement : 15.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010654502009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 863/2009 Between: 1. CHINTAM VENKATRAMANA REDDY & ANOTHER, S/O REDDANNA, R/O KADIRIVANDLAPALLE VILLAGE, H/O VANDADI, CHINNAMANDAM MANDAL, 2. CHINTAM KONDA REDDY, (A4), S/O REDDANNA, R/O KADIRIVANDLAPALLE VILLAGE, H/O VANDADI, CHINNAMANDAM MANDAL, ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...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 Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Crl.R.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.165 of 2006, dated 02.06.09 on the file of the Court of 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.863 of 2009 the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa Dist., confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.125 of 2006, dated 04.12.06 on the file of the Court of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Rayachoty. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1170 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 enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the execution of sentence imposed in Crl.A.No.165 of 2006, dated 02.06.09 on the file of the Court of the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa Dist., confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.125 of 2006, dated 04.12.06 on the file of the Court of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.863 of 2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 863/2009 ORDER: The Instant Criminal Revision case has been preferred by Accused No.3 & 4 being petitioner No.1 & 2 being aggrieved by judgment vide Criminal Appeal.No.165 of 2006 dated 02.06.2009 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge Rayachoty, Kadapa District, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.125 of 2006 dated 04.12.2006 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayachoty. Brief Fact of the matter is that: 2. The present petitioner along with accused No.2 was found guilty by the learned Trial Court for an offence punishable under section 489(A), 489(C) & 489(D) of I.P.C. They were directed to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The said order of conviction was challenged before the learned Appellate Court in disposing of the appeal has modified the sentence to 5 years from 7 years. 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.863 of 2009 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is aged about 52 years and present petitioner.No.2/Accused No.4 has expired during the pendency of the instant revision. He further submits that as the criminal revision is pending since more than 20 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments including “Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana”1 has taken a lenient view. He further submits that in Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also following the laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana” in similar circumstances passed necessary order following leniency in Crl.R.C.No.2012 & 2014 of 2011. It submits that the present petitioner being accused.No.3, was in custody for substantial period so necessary order may be passed. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection and submits that the prosecution as sufficiently proved charge against the petitioner thus the punishment and sentence cannot be modified. He further submits that the 1 2019 Lawsuit (SC) 2138 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.863 of 2009 present petitioner was in custody for a period of 3 months 14 days. 5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties, peruse the observations of the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Court. 6. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that, on 15.12.2002 on credible information as to the printing and circulation of fake notes the police authority along with other staff and independent mediators went to thana junction located near Masthanvalli Shamiyana shop of Rayachoty town and found Accused No.1 & 2 who attempted to ran away from the spot on seeing the police and that the police surrounded them and arrested them, on enquiry Accused No.1 & 2 in the presence of independent mediators, confessed that they conspired with other accused and decided to earn money by printing and resorting 100 rupee fake notes and that Accused. No.3 & 4 promised to provide a room in their mango garden to install printing machine and accordingly they installed the printing machine that purchased from Y.V Street, Kadapa and that A5 provided blocks for printing 100 rupee notes and that 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.863 of 2009 Accused No.1 secured paper, ink chemical from Kadapa to print fake 100 rupee notes. The Inspector of Police recovered the 100 rupee fake notes and fake 100 rupee notes printed on one side, 21 in number. Thereafter, Accused No.1 & 2 lead them to mango garden of accused No. 3 & 4 where they were arrested and recovered printing machinery kept in a room and also fake notes and blocks from their possession under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. During the course of trial, learned Trial Court found accused No.2 to 4 to be guilty for offences punishable under section 489(a), 489(c) and 489(d) of I.P.C. It further appears that the present accused No.3 i.e. petitioner.No.1 was involved in the alleged offence as a blocks was seized from the possession of accused.No.3 & 4. The report of expert has also been marked during the trial, it appears from report that notes which was seized from accused No. 1 to 3 and accused No. 6 to 8 were not printed by using blocks that were seized from the possession of accused No.4. However, the other two witnesses proved the prosecution case. 7. Considering the entire aspect I found no doubt regarding the acquisition and involvement of the present 7 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.863 of 2009 petitioner in the alleged offence, the learned Appellate Court has also scanned the evidences placed before the learned Trial Court, I find no illegality in the order of conviction passed by the learned Appellate Court. 8. However, in following the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana” and also perusing the order passed by the co- ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.2012 & 2014 of 2011, it appears that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court following the observations of “Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana” has observed that since two decades has elapsed and as the accused persons has convicted and undergone substantial period during the criminal litigation, a lenience has been observed. Since the charges framed in Crl.R.C.No.2012 & 2014 of 2011 are similar to that of present revision, I think it would be necessary to observe similar order as per judicial discipline of this Court. 8. Considering the same, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, by modifying the order of conviction of sentence passed against the present petitioner 8 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.863 of 2009 being accused No.3 for the period instead of 5 years rigorous imprisonment to the period of incarceration already undergone by the present petitioner during the entire litigation. 9. This Court makes it clear that the lenience shown by this Court is not an unconditional order and there must be a condition that the petitioner shall not involve himself in similar type of circumstances crime or any other criminal antecedent in future. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date : 15.07.2026. CMK. Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 9 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.863 of 2009 151 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Criminal Revision Case No: 863 Of 2009 Date: 15.07.2026 10 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.863 of 2009 CMK