Note: Accused was released on bail vide Gourt order dated 15'09'2006 ln Crl.R.C.M'P.No.2240 of 2006' rN rHE HIGH.or*IISIotJ*=ot'#E oF TELANGANA THURSDAY' THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI cRl MINA L REVISION CA E NO: 15580 F 2006 CriminalRevisionCaseUnderSection3gT&40lofCrl.P.Cagainstthe JudgmentinCrl.A.No.TTof2000dated,lg.04.2006onthefileoftheCourtoftheV Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) at Nizamabad' Preferred against theOrderinCC.No.329of199B,dated07-09-2000onthefileoftheCourtofthe Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court) at Nizamabad' Between: ShaikAbdulGaffar,s/oShaikl\'4ohammad'agred29vears'Occ:Business' R/o Quiila Road, N"ea"r ]irr'"ii)r*-ioiV; -l,jlosdre, -Nilamabad, Nizamabad District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh' Thro-ugh the,station House Officer' P S Town lV, Nizamabad, tnroug'fit-Plniil-Cr"o-secuto'' High Court of A P ' at HYderabad. ."RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D' PurnachandraReddy,AdvocateforthePetitionerandofthePublicProsecutor on behalf of the Sole ResPondent' The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI Thjs CriminaI Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned V AdditionaI Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, in Crt.A.No.77 of 2000 dated 19.04.2006, whereby the learned Judge, confirmed the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in defautt to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months imposed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishabte under Section 379 of l.P.C. by the learned Judiciat First Class Magistrate (Speciat Mobite), Nizamabad, in C.C.No.329 0f 1998 dated 07.09.2000. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on the night of 24.09.1997 the revision petittoner/accused committed theft of Bajaj Cub Scooter bearing No.AP 25 2197 worth Rs.'10,000/- betongs to P.W.5-K.Sangameshwar from his house. Basing on the complaint todged by P.W.5, a case in Crime No,114 of 1997 has been registered against the revisjon petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 379 of l.P.C. -T- CRL.R.C.No.1 558 of 2006 JUDGMENT: 2 and after comptetion of investigation the potice fited a charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused. The revision petitioner/accused was tried for the offence punishabte under Section 379 of LP.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws"l to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 and P3 to prove the guitt of the revision petitioner/accused. On behatf of the revision petitioner/ accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced' On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the triat Court found the revision petitioner/accused guitty of the offence punishabte under Section 379 of l'P'C' and accordingty convicted and sentenced him as stated supra' ln an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-accused, the tearned appeltate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed agairrst the revision petitioner/accused. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused preferred this criminaI revision. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused, the learned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record' i- f The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishabte under Sect'ion 379 of LP.C. is reduced to the period atready undergone by the revision petitioner/accused white maintaining the sentence of fine. SDi.CH.VENKATESHWARU LU DEPUTY REGISTRAR 1, j SECTION OFFICER 1. The V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Nizamabad. (with records) 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile Court) at Nizamabad. 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Khilla, Nizamabad. 4. One CC to Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Copy gbr To, 'r There is concurrent finding of both the Courts betow with regard to guitty of the revis'ion petitioner/accused and the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/ acc used has atso not shown me anyth'ing, which woutd discredit the evidence. Therefore, there is no interference warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took ptace in the year 1997 and almost 24 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. ln these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period atready undergone by the revision petitioner/accused, while maintaining the sentence of fine. //TRUE COPY' HIGH GOURT DATED: 0310312022 '., \ ORDER CRL.RC.No.1558 of 2006 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE. X,N *'\,o