HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.89 OF 2005 Date: 09.03.2010 Between: Annapareddy Mukannteshwar Reddy and another ……Petitioners And: The State of A.P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad. ……Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.89 OF 2005 ORDER: The accused Nos.3 and 4 are the petitioners. They were convicted by the courts below i.e., Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karimnagar and Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar for offence under Section 381 IPC along with three others. The Magistrate imposed sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The Principal Sessions Judge altered sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months. A-1 to A-7 are employees of A.P.S.R.T.C., Kamareddy Depot. They brought scrap material from Kamareddy Depot and dumped the same in workshop, A.P.S.R.T.C., at Karimnagar. It is alleged that while dumping the scrap material, A-1 to A-7 retained some of the material in the bus itself and were going back to Kamareddy. When Security Guard of the workshop stopped the bus for verification, A-6 and A-7 jumped from the bus and slipped away. A-1 was driving the bus and A-2 to A-5 were sitting in the bus at that time. There was scrap material worth about Rs.7,400/- in the bus and it was seized. On those allegations, A-1 to A-7 were prosecuted for offence under Section 381 IPC. In my opinion, facts as stated by the prosecution do not disclose offence punishable under Section 381 IPC, as basic ingredients for offence of theft as defined in Section 378 IPC are not there. Even as per the prosecution case, A-1 to A-7 were entrusted with the scrap material at Kamareddy workshop for dumping the same at Karimnagar workshop, and while dumping scrap material at Karimnagar workshop, A-1 to A-7 retained some property in the bus itself and intended to misappropriate the same for themselves. When there were entrustment and the alleged misappropriation, the appropriate section of law to be invoked by the prosecution would be different and not Section 381 IPC. In order to attract offence punishable under Section 381 IPC, there must be taking away of the property from another’s possession. There cannot be taking away of the scrap material when the accused themselves were in possession of it. Thus, the prosecution could not prove basic ingredients required for a theft as defined under Section 378 IPC. Both the courts below did not notice requirements for convicting the petitioners under Section 381 IPC. Both the courts below fell into groove of the prosecution and simply decided the case on an evaluation of evidence without going into satisfaction or otherwise or basic ingredients required for theft. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the convictions and the sentences passed by the courts below against the petitioners 1 and 2/A-3 and A-4 are not sustainable in law. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the convictions and the sentences passed against the petitioners 1 and 2/A- 3 and A-4 and acquitting them. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:09.03.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL RC NO.89 OF 2005 Date:09.03.2010. Gk.