Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y.Lakshmana Rao
Thaneeru Venkata Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of AP Rep By Its PP Hyd – Respondent
ORDER :
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.
The two Criminal Revision Cases are heard and disposed of by this Common Order inasmuch as the Calendar Case against the three petitioners is one and the same.
2. Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 have been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging judgment dated 24.11.2009 in Crl.A.Nos.106 and 137 of 2009 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, altering the conviction from Section 379 of ‘the IPC.,’ to Section 411 of ‘the IPC’, while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment and fine, imposed by the judgment dated 17.03.2009 in C.C.No.65 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, whereby and whereunder the petitioners in the two Criminal Revisions Cases were found guilty for offence under Section 379 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.
3. Sri. Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel, representing Sri. Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, and Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, the learned counsels fo
Possession of stolen goods can uphold a conviction under Section 411, provided mens rea is established, even without direct evidence of theft.
The prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the stolen nature of property to secure a conviction under Section 411 of IPC.
Possession of stolen property requires knowledge of its stolen nature; conviction upheld with modified sentence to fine.
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 upheld the conviction for possession of stolen property, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs.9,000.
The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly received stolen property to establish guilt under Section 411 of IPC.
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
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 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 court upheld the conviction for theft, emphasizing the presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which applies when stolen goods are found in the accused's possession.
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
