Mohd Fareeduddin v. State ofAP.,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: E.V. VENUGOPAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-02-19. Mohd Fareeduddin v. State ofAP.,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAYOF FEERUARY TIAIO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENI'GOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 164 OF 2012 Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC aggrieved by the Judgment d1. 20-7 -20'11 passed in CrlA. No. 10212011 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad, preferred against the Judgment dated 10-02-20'11 in C. C. No. 398 of 2009 on the file of the court of the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Between: Mohd Fareeduddin, S/o Md. Muneeruddin Business R/o H. No. 9-4-2913811|C, Hakeempet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND State of AP. , PS Habeeb Nagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Public ProSecutor, High Court of A. P. Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT l. A. NO: 2OF 2012(CRLRCMP.
NO: 262 OF 20121 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dl. 20-7-2011 and in CrlA. NO. 1O2l2O'11 in Cr. NO. 398/2009 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad, to release the Petitiner on bail Pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. Counset for the PEtitioner : SRI SARWATH KHAN, FOR SRl. M A K MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent : SRI VIZARATH ALl, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. The Court made the following: oRDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVIS ION CASE No. 164 oF 20L2 ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case is l-rled aggrieved by the judgment dated 2O. OZ. 2OIl in Criminal Appeal No. I02 of 2OlI on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated l0. O2. 2Ol I in C. C. No.
39g of 2OO9 on the file of the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court"). 2. Heard Mr. Sarwath Khan learned counsel representing Mr. M. A. K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath, Ali, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent State. perused the record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused was alleged to have committed theft of the Hero Honda passion bearing No. AP 9 AL 2609 along witl. other vehicles pertaining to other crimes pertaining to different police stations. Therefore, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 3e of IpC. -t , . i. 4. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and for six months sentenced him to undergo simple irnprisonment days. Aggrieved while directing to set off the remand period of 24 thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. 5.
The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court' while directing to issue NBW against the petitioner. Assailing the same, the present Revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugrred judgment. 7 . l,earned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same and contended that both the Courts upon appreciating the oral and documentar5r evidence available on record in right perspective passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision. :7' J 8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. pl to p5 and MOl. On behalf of the defence, none were exarnined and no document was marked.
Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence of pWs. I to 3, the trial Court observed that MOl was stolen on O4. Ol. 2O0g and found to be in the possession of the accused on O6. O 1. 2OOg. Moreover, there was no explanation from the accused about the said possession of vehicle. Therefore, as per the presumption under Section I 14 of Indian Erridence Act, the accused may be presumed to be the thief or receiver of stolen propertv. In the instant case, the stolen property was received from the possession of the accused with a gap of one day from the date of occurrence of the incident. Therefore, the trial Court found that the accused was guilty of the alleged offence of theft and rendered the judgment cited supra. 9. The appellate Court upon re_appreciating the evidence available on record also found that the accused was unable to account for the possession of the subject vehicle. Furthermore, the accused was. also alleged to have involved in four other crimes namely Crime Nos.
43g of 2OO9 and 459 of 2OOZ of Miyapur police Station, Crime No. l3Ol of 2OOZ of Banjara Hills police Station and Crime No. 5O6 of 2OO7 of Huma5run Nagar Police Therefore, the learned Judge conl-rrmed the frndings of judgment supra. Court and passed tl"e impugned cited Court vide 10. A perusal of the record shows that this dated 03. 02. 2012 suspended the sentence of imprisonment alone imposed against the petitioner and directed to enlarge on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 1O,OOO/- two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad' Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments. 11. In the present case. on hand, both the Courts held accused was guilty of the offence under Section 379 which finding, in my considered view, does not call . interference, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction Section 397 Cr. P. C. 12.
There are no grounds much less valid grounds to judgments with the well considered of both the Courts accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed. 13. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and upon considering the fact that the petitioner underwent mental agony by roaming around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the sentence imposed against the petitioner and reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him 14. Except the above modifrcation, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUW REGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad. 2. The XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Courik for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI 4. One CC to SRl.
M A K MUKHEED Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD copies. Cvk/PR ,. '((- (,"rt p t. 'G HIGH COURT DATED:1 9t02t2024 /-. -. 1::-":=':- ,,/ -. \ r\l' :. I ORDER I. ,. \,j,. ',, '. J CRLRC. No. 164 of 2012 0 3 i. ' iili . iz,t -1 s ,t CRLRC IS DISMISSED. fut [,ia
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.