IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1086 of 2010 DATE:16.06.2010 Between: Deyyala Damayanthi …… Petitioner/Accused. And: State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Public Prosecutor. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1086 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by A-2 questioning concurrent findings of the two Courts below to the affect that A-2 is guilty of offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. 2) Evidence on record particularly that of P.Ws 1 and 4 proved that the petitioner/A-2 along with two other ladies were carrying aluminium cladding sheets from out of Vizag Steel Plant and that they were nabbed by the security personnel i.e., C.I.S.F personnel who are P.Ws 1 and 4. Ex.P-1 is report given by P.W-1 to the police on the basis of which Ex.P-4 F.I.R was issued. Aluminium cladding sheets which were in possession of A-2 and others were seized as per Ex.P-2 seizure list. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the prosecution did not lead any evidence with regard to commission of theft of aluminium cladding sheets and they were stolen properties and that therefore there can be no presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act to the affect that the person in possession thereof is a thief or a receiver of stolen property. In my opinion, arguments addressed by the petitioner’s counsel are fallacious. It is a case where A-2 was caught red handed while committing the theft and while she moving away aluminium cladding sheets out of Vizag Steel Plant. A-2 was caught red handed by C.I.S.F personnel who were in charge of security of the plant. Therefore, no further evidence is expected to be let in by the prosecution with regard to commission of the theft and the property being stolen property. 3) When A-2 was caught red handed along with part of M.O-1 property, it is for her to explain her possession thereof. It is not her case that she is owner of M.O-1 aluminium cladding sheets which she was carrying on her head. Therefore, there is absolutely no need for the prosecution to establish that M.O-1 is stolen property. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below came to right conclusion in favour of the prosecution. There are no merits in this revision petition. 4) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 16, 2010 KSH