The court upheld convictions for theft while modifying sentences based on the right to a speedy trial, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER :

(Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.)

The three Criminal Revision Cases are heard and disposed of by this Common Order inasmuch as the petitioner is same in the three cases.

2. Crl.R.C.No.1762 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C ’) challenging the judgment dated 03.10.2008 in Crl.A.No.33 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the judgment dated 12.01.2006 in C.C.No.122 of 2005 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C .,’ for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

3. Crl.R.C.No.1766 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C ’) challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2008 in Crl.A.No.199 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the judgment dated 11.07.2005 in C.C.No.47 of 2004 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C .,’ for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

4. Crl.R.C.No.1768 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C ’) challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2008 in Crl.A.No.200 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the judgment dated 11.07.2005 in C.C.No.50 of 2004 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C .,’ for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

5. I have heard the arguments Mr. T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

6. Mr. T.Diwakar Reddy, the learned counsel submits that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt as the learned Trial Court committed the error in relying on the evidence of P.W.2, who is stock witness and whose evidence was not trust worthy. The learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the false case were foisted for statistical purpose against an innocent person.

7. It is argued that in regard to Crl.R.C.No.1766 of 2008, P.W.3, who was a stock witness, whose evidence was not trust worthy.

8. In regard to Crl.R.C.No.1768 of 2008, P.W.4, who was a stock witness, whose evidence was not trust worthy and the learned Courts below wrongly relied on the evidence and found the petitioner guilty, and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Cases.

9. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner, who was 20 years age at the time of the commission of the alleged offence; nearly more than 22 years have passed by; right to speedy trial, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is being violated. This right to speedy trial includes speedy disposal of the Appeal and Revision. It is urged that taking into account the above submissions, sentence the petitioner to the sentence which he had already undergone.

10. Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that in all the three cases the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence thus concu