Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
PICHIKUNTLA SUBBARAYDUDU @ PRAPARAYUDU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF A.P. REP BY PP. – Respondent
ORDER :
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
The revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment in Crl.A.No.97 of 2006, dated 22.06.2009, whereunder the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Anatapur, while partly allowing the appeal in favour of A4, confirmed the conviction against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, who are A1 to A3, for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) and reduced the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year to simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railways, Guntakal, after elaborate trial found the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the offence charged.
3. Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on correct prospective; independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution; the findings are on assumptions or presumptions; grossly erred in relying on the confessional statemen
The court upheld the conviction for unlawful possession of railway property, affirming the admissibility of confessions and modifying the sentence to that already served due to prolonged litigation.
The accused's failure to provide any explanation or plea regarding the unlawful possession of railway properties led to the affirmation of the conviction. The court also exercised its discretion unde....
Accused must prove lawful possession of railway property to avoid conviction under the Railway Property Act.
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
The court's decision established the principle that in cases of first-time offences and considering the nature of the offence, the court may modify the sentence by imposing a fine instead of rigorous....
The conviction for receiving stolen railway property cannot stand without clear evidence of theft and expert identification, highlighting the necessity for prosecution to meet its burden of proof.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, and found the sentence to be just and in accordance with the law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
