IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 651 of 2004. Between: Paspuleti Narayana … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad Through Inspector of Police, Tenali I-Town Police Station . … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K. Chaitanya Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 651 OF 2004 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2003, dated 01-4-2004, confirming the judgment of the I-Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, in CC.No. 296 of 2000, dated 09-1-2003, convicting the petitioner-accused to suffer three months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 411 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : On the night of 31-3-2000 some unknown offenders committed theft of 6 silver glasses, two silver cups, one silver plate of 250 grams, two silver plates of eleven grams, two pairs of ear studs, two gold rings and one gold harm by break opening the house of Koneru Srinivas Rao located at Salipet, Tenali. A report was given by him and a case in Cr.No.93/2000 was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I-Town Police Station. The Inspector of Police examined the scene of offence and prepared an observation report and rough sketch in the presence of mediators; namely Lakkaraju Chiranjeevi and Chinta Srinivasa Rao. On information, the Inspector arrested the accused at 12 noon on 15-6- 2000 near Bhavanarushi temple, Sharaf bazaar, Tenali in the presence of above stated mediators under a cover of mediatornama and three goldchains were also seized from him. They pertain to the other crimes. On the confession made by accused, the Inspector, his staff and mediators proceeded to the house of accused located at Chebrole and seized the gold haram, the stolen property in this case under a cover of mediatornama attested by the above mediators. He confessed that the remaining stolen articles were sold away by another offender. Hence the charge. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation and pleaded not guilty. Charges under sections 457 and 380 or 411 IPC were framed, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO-1 were marked. On behalf of the accused, DWs1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was marked. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused denied the same. 6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offences under section 411 IPC and sentenced him to suffer three months simple imprisonment. 7. On appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. The point for determination is whether the judgment of both the courts below are true, correct and proper ? 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now aged about 62 years and he is only the bread winner of the family and he has to lookafter his children and further he suffered humiliation nearly for the past ten years and also stigma of conviction attached to the petitioner herein. Considering the same, the learned counsel requested to show some leniency in this regard. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances and also on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that some leniency can be shown to the petitioner by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by both the courts below and directing the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.3000/- as fine. The said amount is directed to be paid within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 11. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision is disposed of. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 16-06-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 6 5 1 OF 2004 Circulation Entry No. 7 2 Date: 16-06-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L