IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Kolipaka Venkateswara Rao @ Babji, S/o. Sayudulu, R/o. Dachepalli Guntur District. – Appellant
Versus
State of AP, rep. by iti§ Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati – Respondent
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.247 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.504 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
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar
The court ruled that while the conviction under Section 411 of the IPC was upheld, the sentence was modified to one year due to the petitioner's age and health, emphasizing the right to a speedy tria....
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.
The court confirmed the conviction under the A.P. Excise Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and procedural adherence in the criminal justice process.
The court upheld the modification of conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 based on procedural irregularities and mental anguish caused by prolonged litigation.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC sections while emphasizing limitations on revisional jurisdiction and the right to a speedy trial, reducing the sentence due to the petitioner's health and t....
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited and not to be exercised lightly; it will not intervene unless clear errors in the law or significant injustices are evident.
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
The court upheld convictions for theft while modifying sentences based on the right to a speedy trial, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, limiting interference to exceptional cases only where manifest injustice or procedural errors exist, emphasizing the importance of the trial co....
Possession of stolen goods can uphold a conviction under Section 411, provided mens rea is established, even without direct evidence of theft.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.