Syed Faheem, v. The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,

NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 09.11.2000, in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3037 of 2010, in Crl.R.C No.2067 of 2010.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER cRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2067 OF 2010 Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C against the Judgment daled 25.10.2010 made in Crl.Appeal No. 69 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Vl Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar preferred against the Judgment dated 13.05.2009, in S.C. No. 382 ot 2007, on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar. Between:

Syed Faheem, S/o. Syed Sadiq, Occ: Auto Driver, Rl/o. D.No, 7-11213, near New Mbsque, Abbusher Colony, Pahadi Shareef, Hyderabad, N/o. Rauf Sab Darga, Yerramammugutta, Veerannapet of Mahabubnagar District. ...REVISlON PETITIONERvAPPELI-ANT NO. 2/ACCUSED No' 2 AND The State of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel forthe Petitioner : SRl. M. ACHUTA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the folloring:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2O67 of 2O1O ORDER:

1. The revision petitioner was initially prosecuted for the offence under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period five years vide judgment in S.C.No.382 of 2OO7 dated 13.05.2009 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. In appeal, learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove that the revision petitioner was part of the group which committed dacoity. However, found that in view of t the material objects being recovered from the revision petitioner, conviction was altered to Section 4I1 of IPC and sentenced to uqdergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years vide common judgment dated 25. 10.2O10 in Criminal Appeal Nos.68,69 and 7O of 2OO9 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge atl Mahabubngar.

i Learned counsel appearing revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner was falsely implicated, however, he was d only 20 years when the incident has taken place. There are no age

other cases insofar as the revision petitioner is concerned. Since there are dependents, who are wife, children and parents of the revision petitioner, learned counsel prayed to reduce the sentence of imprisonment.

:

3. Keeping in view that the revision petitioner was found not, .

guilty of the offence of dacoity and there are no other cases pending against him of similar kind. Further, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2OO7, nearly 17 years have passed by, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the one already undergone by the revision petitioner' Accordingly, the revision case is partly allowed. 4.

\ Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE ON OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Additional sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. (with records if any)

2. The Assistant Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutoi, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) o;" cC to snt. vl ecHUTA REDDY Advocate [oPUC] . Two CD CoPies h a.r DL/g

HIGH COURT DAIED:2710812024 tlE SIA i':"

{ 0 2 jHii ig2!

2l

ORDER

) oi t CRLRC.No.2067 of 2010 CFs.,n rfu.i_' '

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.

4x>