THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1573 of 2005 15-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Ganeshula Srinivas AND …..Appellant/accused No.1 State of Andhra Pradesh by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1573 of 2005 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/A.1 challenging the Judgment, dated 07.10.2005, in S.C. No.611 of 2005 passed by the Court of the Special Judge for trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, whereby the learned Judge found the appellant/A.1 guilty for the offence under Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 489-B IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years for the offence under Section 489-C IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on 17.05.2004, at about 8.00 p.m., the accused went to the shop of Mohd.Osman, P.W.4, and purchased spectacles for a sum of Rs.30/- and gave him a Rs.100/- note and P.W.4 found that the said note was fake one and showed the same to the Abdul Shookur, P.W.1, who also confirmed that it was a fake note and that the accused tried to run away and that the complainant with the help of his brother Mohd.Omer, apprehended the accused and took the accused to the Police Station and presented a report. Basing on the said report, a case was registered against the accused and was investigated into. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet.
To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 was marked on behalf of the prosecution.
No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Ex.D.1.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant/A.1 for the offence under Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/A.1.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
After evaluating and examining the material available on record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that there are no special or adequate reasons, warranting interference by this Court with the Judgment passed by the trial Court.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/A.1 confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that as the appellant/A.1 is the only breadwinner in his family and has to lookafter his old aged parents and child, lenient view may be taken by this Court while imposing sentence of imprisonment.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/A.1 and the nature of offence, and also in view of long lapse of time, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.
In the result, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant/A.1 for the offence under Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC is hereby confirmed. However, this Court, taking a lenient view, modifies and reduces the sentence of imprisonment to the period, which the appellant/A.1 has already undergone. The sentence of fine and default condition, imposed by the Court below, is not interfered with.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 15.12.2014 pln