Telangana High Court
CRLRC/499/2009 of Shaik Shaiksha Vali, Vs The State of A.P., on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 499 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The Revision Petitioner herein was accused No.2 in C.C.No.25 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddalur and he along with A -1, A -3 and A -4 was convicted for the offence under
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAOCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 499 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
The Revision Petitioner herein was accused No.2 in C.C.No.25of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddalur andhe along with A-1, A-3 and A-4 was convicted for the offence underSection 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, which inCriminal Appeal No.39 of 2008 on the file of the VI AdditionalSessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur was confirmed onlyagainst A-1 and A-2 and acquitted A-3 and A-4.
The case of the prosecution is that A-1 to A-4 went to the shopof P.W.1, when he was doing business, the accused tried to committheft of Rs.20,000/-, which was kept in the cash counter and A-1 and A-2 were apprehended on the spot whereas A-3 and A-4 left the place.
On the basis of the above complaint, the accused were tried forthe offence under Section 379 of IPC and accordingly convicted andsentenced by the learned Magistrate.
The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the accusedhave kept the money in the bag when they have been apprehended atthe scene. The question of identification does not arise. Therefore,the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and theconviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate, whichwas confirmed in the appeal against A-1 and A-2, does not call for anyinterference.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Thelower Court is directed to issue non-bailable warrants for theapprehension of the accused to serve the remaining period ofsentence.
________________________
N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 29-12-2011MR
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 499 of 2009
MR
DATE: 29-12-2011