CRLRC/636/2011 of GANTA PAEDDI RAJU, Vs THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD., on 6 September 2026

1. GANTA PAEDDI RAJU,, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O. SUBBARAYUDU TEMPLE STREET, PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.01.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.27 of 2009 on the file of the court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Narasapur, West Godavari District filed against the Judgement passing CC.No.386/2004, dated 09.01.2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, West Godavari District IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 917 OF 2011

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 Judgement passed in CC.No. 386/2004, dated 09.01.2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistate of First Class, Palakol, West Godavari Dist IA NO: 2 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 957 OF 2011 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/accused No.3 on bail by suspending the execution of sentence imposed in Crl.A.No. 27 of 2009, dated 10.01.2011 on the file of the

Court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Narapur, West Godavari District filed against the Judgement passing C.C.No. 386/2004, dated 09.01.2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistate of First Class, Palakol, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner herein to engage the Legal/Professional services of Mr.Yennapu Rajaratnam (26292) as my counsel to represent the captioned CRL.RC.No.636 OF 2011 on my behalf AND/OR pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Ms. Kartika Vijayasree Ld. Counsel represents Sri Yennapu Rajaratnam Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner Counsel for the Respondent:

1. Sri Panini Somayaji Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor

The Court made the following order:

1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has placed reliance upon the common order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Case Nos.105, 104, 106, 644, 655, 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589 and 1590 of 2011 and submits that the issue involved in the present revision is squarely covered by the findings recorded therein.

2. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Ms.Kartika Vijayasree, learned counsel represents Sri Yennapu Rajaratnam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

3. Perused the common order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the batch of criminal revision cases.

4. It appears that the petitioner herein was arrayed as A.1 in C.C. No.386 of 2004 and was initially convicted by learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal. Learned appellate Court, by its common judgment dated 10.01.2011 in Criminal Appeal Nos.21 and 27 of 2009, set aside the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C. However, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-.

5. I have perused the findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench in paragraphs 25 and 28 of the common order dated 08.05.2024. The Coordinate Bench, upon considering the material on record, categorically held that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. were not established and that there was no sufficient material to sustain the conviction under the said provision.

6. In view of the aforesaid finding of the Coordinate Bench, which squarely covers the issue involved in the present revision on merits, and having regard to the material available on record, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned appellate Court against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. is hereby set aside.

7. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.07.09.2026 BV