The right to a speedy trial includes timely resolution of revisions, and identity of stolen property need not be proven for conviction under theft offenses.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Revision has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) challenging the judgment dated 08.06.2010 in Crl.A.No.248 of 2006 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna District at Vijayawada, confirming the judgment dated 07.11.2006 in C.C.No.496 of 2003 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the Petitioner/sole Accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 411 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.,’) and convicted under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, the Petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that there was no identification of property marked under Ex.M.O.Nos.1 to 5; the learned courts below failed to appreciate the admission of P.W.1 that there was no other person, when he identified the property in the Police Station and no proof to show that the property belongs to him; the Petitioner was wrongfully confined by the Police on 11.07.2003 at Vijayawada and his articles were taken away high handedly;

he also claimed some articles by filing return of property petition; to prove the said contentions, he himself was examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D1 and D2, which were fax messages sent by his wife to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 21.07.2003; to escape from the illegal detention of the Petitioner, the Police had registered three crimes with the same offence by mentioning different dates, and one of three cases got acquitted and in the remaining two cases, the Petitioner got conviction, that itself shows that the Police had registered false cases against the Petitioner, and therefore, it is urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court and acquit the Petitioner.

4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner was in incarceration for more than 19 days. The petitioner’s right to speedy disposal of the criminal revision case as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being infringed and urged to impose the sentence of imprisonment to which they had already undergone and to dispose of the revision case in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material irregularities, miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.248 of 2006 dated 08.06.2010 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Krishna, Vijayawada, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its fin