IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 711 of 2010 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgement in CRL.A NO : 89 dated 26/09/2008 on the file of the Court of the II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MADANAPALLE to present this Memorandum of grounds of revision against the conviction and sentence in the Judgment of the Learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor District, at Madanapalle in Crl.A. No. 89 of 2008 dated 26th September, 2008.,preferred against the order in CC 107 2008 dated 04/06/2008 on the file of the Court of the ) Between: Jogi Srinivasulu S/o. Late J. Venkatarayappa R/o. Shanti Nagar, Near Rampalle (V), N/o. Bhimaganipalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.NASEEB AFSHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : PSR, J. Crl.R.C.No. 711 of 2010 Judgment: This revision is filed against the judgment in Crl.A.No. 89 of 2008 of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle, which in turn was filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur in C.C.No. 107 of 2008. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: On 1.4.2008 at about 10-30 PM, at Suguturu Gangamma Temple, Palace compound, Punganur town, theft of gold ear studs with stones weighing two grams has taken place and theft of some more property has also taken place on 2.4.2008 at about 10.00 AM. Separate complaints were given and cases in C.Nos. 51 and 52 of 2008 for the offence under section 379 IPC were registered. During the course of investigation, on 24.4.2008 at 11.00 AM at Bheemaganipalle Bus- stop, on Punganur – Madanapalle Road, the accused was arrested and stolen property, along with property in other crimes was recovered from him. 3. On the appearance of the accused, charges under section 379 IPC and alternatively under section 411 IPC was framed against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. When examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. 5. On the basis of the evidence available on record, as there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the only material available against the accused was recovery of stolen property, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence under section 411 IPC and sentenced him for three years. As against the above conviction and sentence, the accused filed – Crl.A.No. 89 of 2008. 6. As the material available on record i.e., the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who spoke about the stolen property being recovered from the possession of the accused, proved the guilt of the accused, the learned appellate judge confirmed the conviction imposed by the learned Magistrate. 7. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused; there are no eye witnesses for the incident and as a vague recovery was organized, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision. 9. As contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, this revision is directed against the concurrent finding of the conviction, arrived at by the courts below; there is no question of law to be decided nor there are any circumstances to show that appreciation of evidence by the courts below is of such a nature that would call for interference by this court. In all these circumstances, absolutely there no grounds to interfere with the concurrent finding of both the courts below and the revision is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the revision case is dismissed. 11. However, considering the circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence under section 411 IPC is confirmed. But, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is reduced to two years. The period of detention already under gone by the petitioner/accused shall be given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The sentence in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence in Crl.R.C.No. 673 of 2010. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:28—04—2010. *BVS