Osman Shareef v. The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp
\ r) 132s11
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2342OF 2013 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC against the Judgment dated '18.10.2013 made in Crl.A.No.105 of 2010 on the file of the court of the lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad, preferred against the Order passed CC.No.503 of 2005, dated 10-03-2010 on the file of the Court of the Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Between :
Osman Shareef, S/o.Dawood Shareef, Occ Business, R/o. H.No, 17-5-540, Qasim Bowli, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner
AND The State Of A.P. PP, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A.Hariprasad Reddy : Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the following :ORDER
) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMTNAL REVISION CASE No.2342 OF 2013 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner-accused aggrieved by the Judgment passed in Cr1.A.No.105 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad, confirming the judgment in C.C.No.5O3.of 2005, on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.
3.
The revision petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 and was tried for the offences under Sections 295 and 297 of IPC. Petitioner and his father accused No.3 trespassed into Muslim graveyard and constructed a compound wall, according to the prosecution, which is
an offence of trespass punishable under Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned trial Judge having examined PWs.1 to 7 and marking Exs.Pl and P9, found that both this petitioner and his father-accused No.3 were guilt5r and sentenced them to one year imprisonment under both counts.
5. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that no offence under Section 295 of IPC was made out. However, while maintaining the conviction under Section 297 of IPC, set aside the imprisonment of accused No.3 and modified into hne. However, the conviction and sentence was maintained as against this petitioner. 6.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner would submit that when the allegations against both accused No.2 and 3 were the same. The
l relief extended by the learned Sessions Court to accused No.3 ought to have been extended to the petitioner also.
7. Having gone through the record, the allegation is that the petitioner and his father had constructed a compound wall which extended into the graveyard. Adequate evidence was placed on record to substantiate the allegation.
8.
However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2OO4 and since 20 years have passed by, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside, however, the fine component is upheld.
9. With the said modification, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad
2. The lV Additionar Metroporitan sessions Judge, at Fiyderabad. (with records, if any) ? 9n" CC to Sri AHariprasad Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]
4. Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court ftr the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
5. Two CD Copies Svs/gh X-y
n HIGH COURT DATED:0411012024 TA r€ s e 3 2{ JAll Z6 f
ORDER
t CRLRC.No.2342 ot 2013 t PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLRC o t, W i