THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.270 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: Out of the seven accused, i.e. A-1 to A-7 in C.C. No.261 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, A-5, who was found guilty along with A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 for the offence punishable under Section 381 IPC and who were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for two months by its judgment dated 12-04-2002, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Karimnagar and that the said first appellate Court, taking the entire material on record into consideration and after hearing both sides, was pleased to dismiss the appeal of A-5. However, while doing so, the first appellate Court has reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months while maintaining the conviction and sentence of fine. 2. It is against the said dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate Court, A-5 has preferred this revision case assailing the said judgment of dismissal, inter alia, on the following grounds: (a) that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective; (b) that both the Courts below failed to see that the prosecution failed to prove its case as PW.4, who was examined as one of the mediators to the recovery and seizure of the alleged theft property, had turned hostile and as such, the alleged theft property could not be said to have been recovered from the custody of the revision petitioner-A-5; (c) that both the Courts below ought to have seen that PWs.1 and 3 were interested witnesses and that PW.2, who was examined as one of the eye witnesses, has turned hostile; (d) that both the Courts below ought to have seen that the accused (A-5) has no dishonest intention in moving the alleged theft articles and the prosecution failed to prove any practice or procedure of entry and exit of the vehicles into depot; and (e) that both the Courts below failed to notice discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the guilt of the accused (A-5) was not proved as required by law. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24-02-1999, at about 10-30 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 2 and other personnel of A.P.S.R.T.C., Zonal Workshop, Karimnagar were on security duty and while they were checking the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AEZ - 2642, they noticed A-1 to A-7 carrying scrap material (bus body and engine parts) worth Rs.7,400/-, that A-1 is none other than the driver of the said bus while A-2 to A-7 were inside the bus, that P.W.3 preferred a police complaint, that all the accused were transporting the scrap material by committing theft thereof from A.P.S.R.T.C. Zonal workshop, Karimnagar and basing on that a case in Crime No.70 of 1999 was registered against A-1 to A-7 under Section 381 IPC, that A-1 to A-5 were taken into custody then and there. However, A-6 and A-7 had escaped from there, that the scrap material was seized from A-1 to A-5 under cover of panchanama in the presence of the mediators. They were arrested and later sent for remand, that A-6 and A-7 voluntarily surrendered before the Court, that after completion of the investigation, the police laid charge sheet into the Court against A-1 to A-7 for the offence punishable under Section 381 IPC. 4. On appearance of the petitioner - A-5, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar had complied with the formalities as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. The petitioner denied the same and claimed to be tried for the offence under Section 381 I.P.C. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution has got examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 and MOs.1 to 9, whereas no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner. 6. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced and taking the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 into consideration and also considering the other material record, the trial Court, found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 381 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as has already been specified in paragraph No.1 supra. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner - A-5 raised the self-same grounds as he has raised in the grounds of revision and in addition thereto he submits that as per the evidence of PW.3, PWs.1 and 2, with the help of other security officers, had already removed MOs.1 to 9 from the bus and kept them in the room of Security Inspector near the main gate, and therefore, it cannot be said that during the course of investigation, the police had recovered the scrap material from the possession of any of the accused including the petitioner herein. He further submits that, in fact, the A.P.S.R.T.C. Depots concerned maintain the registers of entry and exit of the buses as well as maintenance of stock registers and it is an admitted position that A-1 to A-7 were carrying MOs.1 to 9 from Kamareddy APSRTC bus depot to Karimnagar Zonal Workshop, however it is falsely alleged that without handing over the said MOs.1 to 9 to the authorities concerned and obtaining clearance certificate, they were taking away MOs.1 to 9 from the Zonal Work Shop, Karimnagar. The learned counsel further submits that M.Os.1 to 9 brought from Kamareddy to Karimnagar were inside the bus or inside the premises of the bus depot and that the accused had not taken the said material objects out of the bus depot and as such no intention or motive could be attributed to the accused since it is the case of the prosecution that they had brought those material objects from Kamareddy bus depot to Karimnagar to hand over the same to the authorities concerned at Karimnagar depot. Therefore, it cannot be said that they had any dishonest intention to commit theft of those material objects. Moreover, they were within the premises of the Zonal Workshop of APSRTC, Karimnagar till they were alleged to have been recovered by PW.3 and were placed in the room of the Security Inspector near the main gate, even as per the evidence of PW.3 himself. The learned counsel further submits that as per the prosecution case, A-1 is the Driver of the bus, A-2 is the Cleaner, A-3, A-4 & A-7 are the Mechanics and A-5 is the Helper and that all of them were entrusted with the duty of carrying MOs.1 to 9 from Kamareddy bus depot to Karimnagar depot and they were carrying out the instructions of their superiors, therefore they cannot have anything in their minds except handing over MOs.1 to 9 to the authorities concerned at Karimnagar, and therefore, no dishonest intention could be attributed to the accused in general, that even for the sake of argument, without admitting the case of the prosecution, if any of the accused had such an intention, it cannot be attributed to others in such circumstances. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner, who was working as Helper in A.P.S.R.T.C., Kamareddy depot, cannot be said to have had such an intention to commit theft of MOs.1 to 9. Moreover, all the accused were also supposed to go back to Kamareddy Depot in the same bus after handing over MOs.1 to 9 to the authorities concerned at Karimnagar Depot. He further submits that P.W.2, who was also examined as an eye witness to the incident, turned hostile. Therefore, what remains is the evidence of P.W.1, who was alleged to be a Security Guard, who stopped the bus and removed M.Os.1 to 9 from the bus and kept them in the Security Inspector’s room near the main gate. Therefore, he contends that since PWs.2 and 4, who were examined as eyewitnesses, turned hostile, the evidence of PW.1 stands uncorroborated since there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.3 to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 also. As per his evidence, P.W.3 had handed over A-1 to A-5 along with MOs.1 to 9 to the police. The learned counsel also submits that since it is not the case of the prosecution that M.Os.1 to 9 were seized from the possession of A-1 to A-7 while they were in the bus, it cannot be said that the said material objects were seized from their possession and that they had the dishonest intention to commit theft of the said material objects. He also contends that there is no material on record to show that the bus was leaving for Kamareddy Depot of Nizamabad District along with all the accused as well as MOs.1 to 9 and crossed the limits of zonal workshop of Karimnagar and that it was at that juncture, the bus was stopped and the said material objects were recovered from the possession of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that P.W.5, being the Investigating Officer, has never stated as to the way he has investigated the case. Therefore, his evidence does not prove the case of the prosecution in the absence of corroborating evidence by other prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.2 and 4, who were declared hostile. Therefore, they did not support the case of the prosecution. Though PW.3 was examined as an eye witness, he was, in fact, not an eye witness to the incident and he did not support or corroborate the evidence of PW.1. He has only stated in his evidence as to handing over the accused and material objects to the police. Therefore, there is no corroborating evidence supporting the version of PW.1. In these circumstances, he contends that both the Courts below appear to have lost sight of the said facts and circumstances and commit error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner along with other accused was guilty of the charge under Section 381 IPC. He also contends that had the Courts below considered the variations and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, perhaps, they could have, at least, extended the benefit of doubt to all the accused. He lastly submits that since the incident was alleged to have taken place more than a decade ago and since the revision petitioner-A-5 happened to be working as a Helper in A.P.S.R.T.C., Kamareddy Depot, a lenient view may be taken and the revision case may be allowed. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and conviction and sentence as passed by both the Courts below. 9. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the respective submission made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the impugned judgment and other material on record. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision ? 11. There is no dispute that all the accused including the petitioner herein – A-5 are employees of the APSRTC and MOs.1 to 9 are property of the APSRTC. As per the case of the prosecution, A-1 is the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AEZ – 2642, A-2 is the Cleaner, A-3, A-4 and A-7 are the Mechanics, and A-5, the petitioner herein, is the Helper and all of them were carrying MOs.1 to 9 property belonging to APSRTC from APSRTC Depot, Kamareddy to APSRTC Zonal Workshop, Karimnagar in the said bus to handover the same to the authorities concerned. 12. PWs.1 to 3 are security staff of the APSRTC Zonal Workshop, Karimnagar. PW.1 has stated in his evidence that on 24- 02-1999, during night, while he was on gate of Zonal Workshop, Karimnagar, on seeing the bus in question coming out of the Workshop, he stopped the bus driving by A-1 while A-2 to A-7 were inside and on seeing him, A-6 and A-7 escaped from the bus. He further stated that A-1 to A-7 were committing theft of the scrap material i.e. MOs.1 to 9 from the Workshop without handing over the same to the persons concerned at the Zonal Workshop, Karimnagar. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. They caught hold of A-1 to A-5, kept MOs.1 to 9 in the office room of the Security Inspector – PW.3, PW.3 gave police complaint and during the course of investigation police seized MOs.1 to 9 from the possession of all the accused, who include the petitioner herein. 13. Originally, all the accused, who came to Zonal Workshop, Karimnagar in the morning to handover MOs.1 to 9 there, in the evening without consent of the officers concerned to whom they have to hand over the material and obtain clearance certificate, were taking away the same from the Zonal Work Shop, Karimnagar and the same establishes from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. Admittedly, PWs.1 to 3 and all the accused were belonging to different bus depots of APSRTC and they were not having any inimical terms between them, as such, there is no necessity for PWs.1 to 3 to foist this type of case against the accused. If there was no dishonest intention of committing theft of MOs.1 to 9 property belonging to the APSRTC, A-6 and A-7 would not have escaped from the bus through driver’s door and there is no evidence on behalf of the accused to rebut the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 to that effect. The suggestion of the learned counsel appeared for the accused before the trial Court that the accused were falsely implicated in the instant case due to denial of giving bribe to the security staff, reveals the dishonest intention of all the accused as had they have no dishonest intention to steal the property, there is no need for them to pay bribe to the security staff. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the same proves the case of the prosecution against all the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 14. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that both the Courts below have committed any error in finding the petitioner – A-5 along with the other accused guilty of the offence under Section 381 IPC. 15. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the petitioner has not involved in any other incidents and the incident in question has taken place almost a decade back and he has family and responsibility to maintain them, as such, lenient view may be taken in imposing sentence if the conviction is not set aside. 16. Considering the fact that the petitioner has the family and responsibility of maintain them and that the incident in question has taken place about 12 years back, this Court is of the view that reducing his sentence would meet the ends of justice and accordingly his sentence is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for six months to that of the period he has already undergone during remand and during pendency of this case, while maintaining the fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) with default sentence. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned judgments of the Courts below and conviction of the petitioner (A-5) while reducing his sentence as referred supra. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date:15-04-2011. AMD/PV