CRLRC/1056/2005 of Mohd. Shaffi , Munna, Vs The State of A.P., through Inspector, RPF, Kazipet, on 28 December 2012

JUDGMENT

Crl.R.C.No.1056 of 2005

This revision is directed against the common judgment, dated 07.06.2005, passed by the learned Special Judge for trial ofoffences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI AdditionalMetropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, in Crl.A.No.314 of2004 and batch, wherein the conviction and sentence imposedagainst the petitioner/A9 by the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad vide judgment dated29.10.2004 in C.C.No.26 of 1999, was confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

A1 and A2 were habitual offenders of stolen property ofrailways, A3 and A4 are the mediators in selling the said stolenproperty, A5, A6 and A7 are the receivers of stolen property andA9 is the driver of lorry in which A1 and A2 had shifted the stolenproperty. On 26.03.1998, the Inspector/RPF/CIB/SC along withhis staff, noticed A1 and A2 carrying some heavy material in alorry and on suspicion, they stopped them and on enquiry, A1 andA2 revealed that they have committed the theft of said material. After enquiry, a case in Cr.No.9 of 1998 was registered against theaccused. After recording the statements of witnesses concernedand after completion of investigation, the police laid the chargesheet.

3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14

were examined and Exs.P1 to P65 were marked on behalf of theprosecution and M.Os.1 to 4 were also marked. D.W.1 wasexamined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked on behalf of defence.

4. The case against A1 was split up and numbered asC.C.No.15 of 2002. The learned Magistrate after taking intoconsideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found A2 toA7 and A9 guilty of the offence under Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Actand thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month; andfound A10 not guilty of the offence under Section 3(a) ofRP(UP)Act and accordingly, he was acquitted of the said charge.Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/A9filed Crl.A.No.314 of 2004 and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appealconfirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A9 filed the present revision.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/A9 fairly conceded thatthis is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the factthat the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a substantialperiod, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence ofimprisonment is concerned.

7. From the record, it appears that the petitioner was in jail fora substantial period. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by thepetitioner-A9, this Court is not inclined to interfere with theconviction recorded by the Courts below. But however, in view ofthe submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that thepetitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a considerableperiod and also the lapse of 11 years period, the sentence ofimprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court as confirmed bythe lower appellate Court is reduced to the period alreadyundergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by thesaid Court.The petitioner/A9 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.9,000/-(Rupees nine thousand only) apart from the fine already imposedby the trial Court, before the trial Court on or before 28.02.2013, indefault of the entire fine amount, he shall undergo two monthssimple imprisonment.

8. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision Caseis partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, ifany, shall stand closed.

_________________________

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

28[th] December, 2012sj