APHC010652942009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 495/2009 Between:

1. T HOSAKANA MADHAVI & ANOTHER, W/O SRIRAM, HOUSEWIFE R/O

1-9-22/C, GNANAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

2. A DDANKI VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O LATE RAJA RATNAM, HOUSEWIFE R/O 1-9-22/C, GNANAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. T HE STATE OF A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Crl.R.C., before this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment dated 25.03.09 in Crl.A.No.37 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Dist. & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, partly confirming the Judgment dated 05.02.04 in C.C.No.255 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate (Excise), Vizianagaram.

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 672 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 495/2009

O R D E R:

1. The petitioners are arrayed the accused in crime No.82 of 2001 and

83 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 380 and 411 of IPC. The learned Trial Court found them guilty and convicted them for the offence punishable under Sections 380 and 411 of IPC and directed them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months each for the offence punishable under Section 380 of I.P.C and further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months each, for the offence punishable under section 411 of I.P.C.,. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. A.1 and A.2 are entitled for set-off of remand period, if any, under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,. M.O.1 shall be returned to P.W.1, M.o.1 shall be destroyed and M.O.3 shall be returned to P.W.1, after appeal time is over. Against that, they preferred an appeal before the learned Appellant Court. The learned Appellate Court though confirmed Order of conviction, but reduced the sentence to (6) six months. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision Case.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out several discrepancies in the case of the prosecution. He submits that it has been alleged against the present Petitioners that they have stolen golden chain from the shop of PW.1, thereafter, PW.1 caught hold them within 100 yards from the shop, reported the police. Thereafter, a case was registered. At that time, PW.3 - another shop owner came to know about the incident also lodged another complaint regarding theft of gold chain from his shop on the same day.

i. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that from the prosecution case it would be revealed that the so-called two Gold chains were recovered from the bag of the Petitioners. At that time, one lady constable came, conducted search the persons of Petitioners, but such lady Constable never deposed before the Court. He further submits that the prosecution has also not produced any witnesses to justify the ownership of Gold chains by PW.1 and PW.3. The mediators turned hostile. Thus, the prosecution could not prove the recovery of gold ornamen