IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-
METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026
Present: G. Praveen Kumar., XV- Addl.District & Sessions Judge-cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam Ranga Reddy District.
Crl.Appeal No. 8 of 2021
Between:
P. Shiva Srinivas S/o. Late P. Muneshwar Rao, aged about 42 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.16-11-20/10/2, Plot No.101, Saleem Nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana. …Appellant/Defacto Complainant
AND
1.P. Ramesh Babu S/o. Late Muneswara Rao, Occ: Employee in Pvt. Firm, R/o. H.No.13-10-52/A/101, Plot No.4, Shri Krishna Residency, Flat No.101, New Gaddiannaram, Shiva Ganga Theater Road, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad – 500060.
2. P. Muneeswara Rao S/o. Sitaramaiah (deceased), R/o. H.No.16-11- 310/10/5, Saleem nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
3.Gangadhari David S/o. Devadas, aged 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.14/A, Rock Church Asmangad, Near Thirumala Hills, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
4.Pasham Bixapathy S/o. Chennaiah, aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mangalpally Patelguda Village, Ibrahimpatnam.
5. Gundla Narsimha S/o. Maisaiah, aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mangalpally Patelguda Village, Ibrahimpatnam.
…Respondents/Accused 2 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
On being aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of XXV- Addl. Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District dated:
02/12/2020 in
CC.No.712 of 2010
Between:
P. Shiva Srinivas S/o. Late P. Muneshwar Rao, aged about 42 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.16-11-20/10/2, Plot No.101, Saleem Nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana.
… Defacto Complainant
And
1.P. Ramesh Babu S/o. Late Muneswara Rao, Occ: Employee in Pvt. Firm, R/o.H.No.13-10-52/A/101, Plot No.4, Shri Krishna Residency, Flat No.101, New Gaddiannaram, Shiva Ganga Theater Road, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad – 500060.
2.P. Muneeswara Rao S/o. Sitaramaiah (deceased), R/o. H.No.16-11- 310/10/5, Saleem nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
3.Gangadhari David S/o. Devadas, aged 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.14/A, Rock Church Asmangad, Near Thirumala Hills, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
4.Pasham Bixapathy S/o. Chennaiah, aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mangalpally Patelguda Village, Ibrahimpatnam.
5.Gundla Narsimha S/o. Maisaiah, aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mangalpally Patelguda Village, Ibrahimpatnam.
…Accused
This appeal is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Jyothiraj Vankina., Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defacto Complainant and of Sri P. Shanmukh Rao., learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Accused No.1, Sri B. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.3/Accused No.3, Sri. G. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.4/Accused No.4 and Sri. K. Sadanandam, learned counsel for Respondent No.5/Accused No.5 and the case against Respondent No.2/Accused No.2 is abated since died and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
3 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.Thelearned XXV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District passed Judgment in CC No.712 of 2010
dated:02/12/2020 convicting the Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and
Accused No.4 under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under
Section 419, 420 and 468 r/w 34 of IPC and admonished and released them by invoking 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1937 and acquitted Accused No.5 under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Section 419, 420 and 469 r/w 34 of IPC and abated the case against Accused No.2 since died.
2. Appellant is Defacto-Complainant/ victim in CC.No.712 of 2010 and filed the present Appeal challenging the sentence passed by the learned trial court in releasing Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 & Accused No.4 after admonishing them by invoking Section 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1937.
3.As none challenged the conviction of Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused
No.3 & Accused No.4 and acquittal of Respondent/Accused No.5 the present appeal filed challenging the invoking of section 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1937 for the proved offences against Respondents/ Accused No.1, Accused No.3 & Accused No.4, the scope of the present appeal is very limited to the extent of 4 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021 applicability of Section 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1937 in passing sentence.
4.For the sake of convenience, the Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 5 will be referred to as Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 and Appellant herein will be referred to as Defacto-Complainant.
5.The sum and substance of the case of prosecution is that:- 5.1.On 30/04/2010 LW1/P. Shiva Srinivas, Complainant filed a complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 452, 506, 519, 468, 290 of IPC before IV Metropolitan Magistrate of Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga
Reddy District against Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 praying to refer the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to SHO, PS Ibrahimpatnam to register the case and to investigate into.
5.2.On the basis of the above complaint referred by IV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, LW6/Venkateshwarlu, Inspector of Police,
PS Ibrahimpatnam registered a case in Crime No.158 of 2010 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 452, 506, 419, 468, 290 of IPC, entrusted matter to
LW7/A. Sampath Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam for the purpose of investigation.
5 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021 5.3.During the course of investigation, LW7/A. Sampath Rao, Sub-Inspector of
Police examined and recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of LW1/P. Shiva
Srinivas, LW2/Ch. Vaidehi and LW3/Ch. Ramesh Goud, collected the thumb impressions of LW1/P. Shiva Srinivas in the presence of two independent mediators namely LW4/K. Arvind Kumar and LW5/P. Pavani, referred the same to
Director, Fingerprints Bureau, CID, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through a letter of advise, for comparison with standard thumb impression registered at SRO,
Ibrahimpatnam and collected report from Fingerprints Bureau.
5.4.After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to
Accused No.5 for offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 452, 468 r/w 34 of
IPC stating that 18/09/2002 LW1/P. Shiva Srinivas purchased Plot No.26 admeasuring 67 Square Yards and Plot No.27 admeasuring 167 Square Yards i.e., total admeasuring 234 Square Yards in Sy.No.107/B, situated at Mansanpally
Village from M/s. AVC Housing Private Limited represented by its Managing director A. Srinivas Rao vide Document No.2547/2002 registered before the SRO at Ibrahimpatnam for valid consideration and since the date of purchase the LW1/P.
Shiva Srinivas is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plots. On 01/11/2009 both Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 who are brother and father of
LW1/ P. Srinivas, came to the house of LW1, threatened his family members and took some documents forcefully. On 07/11/2009 Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 6 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021 sold the said property to LW2/Ms. Chinthapally Vaidehi and executed a sale deed vide Document No.6016/2009, dated 19/11/2009 by affixing the photo of Accused
No.1 as LW1/P. Srinivas and forged his signature.
6.Basing on the above charge sheet, the learned trial court, took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC against
Accused No.1 to Accused No.5.
7.On appearance before the learned trial court, Accused No.1 to Accused
No.5 were examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and charges for offences under section 419, 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8.The prosecution, to prove it’s case against the Accused No.1 to Accused
No.5, got examined PW1 to PW7, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 on its behalf and
Ex.D1 on behalf of the Accused persons during the trial before the learned trial court.
9.The particulars of the Roles of witnesses who were examined before trial court are as under:
7 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
Sl.No. Name of Witness Examined AsRole of Witness 1P. Shiva SrinivasPW1Complainant/Victim 2K. Arvind KumarPW2Mediator for collecting fingerprints of defacto complainant 3C. RameshPW3Son of PW4 4Smt. CH. VaidehiPW4Purchaser of the property 5A. Sampath RaoPW5Investigating Officer 6M. JosephPW6Expert from truth lab 7RajasekharPW7Fingerprint expert
10.The particulars of documents that were marked on behalf of the
Prosecution before trial court are:
Sl.No. ExhibitDescription of DocumentMarked through 1Ex.P1 ComplaintPW1 2Ex.P2Certified copy of Sale Deed vide PW1 Doc.No.2547/2002 3Ex.P3Certified copy of Sale Deed vide PW1 Doc.No.6019/2009 4Ex.P4Signature of PW2 on panchanamaPW2 5Ex.P5Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3PW3 6Ex.P6Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4PW4 7Ex.P7First Information ReportPW5 8Ex.P8Original report of Fingerprint BureauPW5 9Ex.P9Original truth lab reportPW6 10Ex.P10Report of the Fingerprint expertPW7 8 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
11.The particulars of documents that were marked on behalf of the Accused
before trial court are:
Sl.No. ExhibitDescription of DocumentMarked through 1Ex.D1Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1
PW1
12.The trial court in its judgment framed the following points for determination.
1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under section 419 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubts?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under section 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubts?
3. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under section 468 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubts?
13.The learned trial Court appreciated the evidence on record for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC and convicted Accused
No.1, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 them under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the said charges and after hearing on the quantum of sentence gave a finding referred in the para No.1 of this judgment.
9 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
14.Feeling aggrieved by the sentence passed against Accused No.1, Accused
No.3 and Accused No.4 the complainant filed the present appeal.
15.During this appeal, neither oral nor documentary evidence adduced by either side.
16.The Complainant filed the present appeal on the following grounds of appeal.
a)The Section 3 of PO Act, 1937 is applicable to the offences punishable under Section 379/ or 380/ or 381 /or 404/ or 420 of IPC or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years or with fine or with both under IPC or any other law. But in the present case, the learned trial court convicted Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 for offences punishable under Section 468 of IPC in addition to 419, 420 of IPC, for which the punishment is imprisonment for seven years to which the PO Act, 1937 is not applicable and thereby the learned Magistrate had committed serious error in invoking Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act.
b)The learned Magistrate has completely misapplied the provisions of the law under PO Act, 1937 and Section 360 of Cr.P.C purely based on the representations of Respondent No.1/Accused No.1 and traced the origin of the disputes between the parties as family dispute and condoned serious offences of Cheating by personation unilaterally.
c)The learned Magistrate has got carried away and misapplied the provisions of Sections of P.O. Act, 1937 and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. to Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 who are not family members of Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 who aided and abated the cheating by personation of Accused No.1.
d)The learned Magistrate has misplaced sympathy towards the Accused No.1 and blindly accepted his contention that he was suffering with long pending trial and in fact the Complainant who is the victim of the prolonged criminal trial, as such the sentence passed by the learned trial court is to be modified by awarding maximum punishment prescribed by the law to the Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4.
10 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
17.Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the
Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 & Accused No.4. Both filed their respective written arguments.
18.Now the points that arises for determination are:
1.Whether trial court erred in releasing the Respondents/Accused No.1 Accused No.3 & Accused No.4 after admonishing them by invoking Section 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 ( Act III of 1937) for the punishable under Section 419, 420 and 468 r/w 34 of IPC ?
2.Whether the Appellant has statutory right to prefer appeal challenging such sentence?
3.Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any illegality/irregularity warranting interference by this Court?
4.To what relief?
19.The case of the prosecution is that PW1 is the owner of Plot No.26 admeasuring 67 Sq.Yards and Plot No.27 admeasuring 167 Sq.Yards i.e., total admeasuring 234 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.107/B, situated at Mansanpally Village, having purchased the same by him from M/s AVS Housing Private Limited represented by its Managing Director, A. Srinivas Rao vide Doc.No.2547/2022 registered before SRO, Ibrahimpatnam for valid consideration on 18/09/2022 and since the date of purchase he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. PW1 is the elder son, Accused No.1 is the younger son of Accused No.2.
Due to family disputes, PW1 started residing separately from Accused No.1 and
Accused No.2. On 01/11/2009, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 came to the 11 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021 house of PW1, threatened his family members, took documents relating to above property forcefully. Later, Accused No.1 executed sale deed vide document
No.6016/2009, dated 19/11/2009 in favour of PW4 by impersonating PW1, affixing his photo against the name of PW1, ( photo of Accused No.1 in place of photo of
PW1) and by forging signature of PW1. According to the prosecution, such alienation was made by Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 with common intention and in collusion with each other and thereby Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 are liable for punishment under Section 419, 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC.
20.To prosecution got examined complainant/ Shiva Srinivas as PW1. He deposed about purchase of Plot No.26 & Plot No.27 under Ex.P2 Sale Deed vide document No.2547 of 2022. He further deposed that on 01/11/2009 his father/Accused No.2 along with Accused No.1 criminally tress passed into his house at Malakpet, forcibly took away Ex.P2 and some other household articles and on information given by his wife he approached the police but they did not take any action. He further deposed that in the month of February, 2010 he came to know that his plot was sold out to PW4 and hence he obtained Encumbrance
Certificate and Ex.P3 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.6019 of 2009. The verification of sale deed show that by impersonating him and by affixing his photograph on the sale deed and by forging his signature the sale deed was executed. Accused No.3 in collusion with other accused stood as witness to Ex.P3.
12 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
He also noticed that some construction activity at his plot and found Ramesh who is son of PW4 at the spot and on questioning the said Ramesh replied that it was purchased by his mother. Hence, he approached the police, Ibhrahimpatnam but they did not take any action as such he filed Ex.P1 complaint before the court.
During the cross examination PW1 deposed that Ex.P3 was not executed by him and he did not witness accused executing Ex.P3. He did not make any allegations against Accused No.5 in Ex.P1 complaint or in his statement. PW1 denied that
Ex.P3 is genuine document and it was executed by him and due to family disputes he is deposing false and that Accused No.5 is no way concerned with the offence.
21.PW2/ K. Aravind Kumar is the attesting witness to thumb impressions of
PW1. He deposed that at the request of Police, he acted as Panch witness and in his presence police obtained thumb impressions of PW1 on some written papers in one or two pages and he attested the same under Ex.P4. During the cross examination, PW2 deposed that PW1 is his colleague as on the date of obtaining thumb impressions.
22.PW3/C. Ramesh is some of PW4/Vaidehi. He did not support the case of prosecution. Hence the contents of his previous statement to police marked as
Ex.P5.
13 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
23.PW4/Smt Vaidehi deposed that about 8 years ago she purchased house plot admeasuring 234 Square Yards in Parelguda Village from one Shiva Srinivas for
Rs.88,000/- and thereafter when police called her to the police station wherein she handed over the documents to police. She does not know Accused No.1 to
Accused No.5. Since, PW5 did not support the case of prosecution the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court has cross examined
PW5 but she denied contents of Ex.P6 her previous statement to Police.
24.PW5 A. Sampath Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam deposed that on the basis of Ex.P1 complaint referred from the court he registered the present case in Cr.No.158 of 2010 for offences punishable under sections 420, 452, 506, 419, 468, 290 of IPC, issued Ex.P7 FIR. He further deposed about recording of section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW1, PW3 & PW4, collection of thumb impressions of PW1 in the presence of PW2 and LW5/P. Bhavani, forwarded the same to the Director, Finger Print Bureau, CID, A.P., Hyderabad through letter of advice to compare with the Standard Thumb Impressions Register of Sub-Registrar Office, Ibrahimpatnam and received Ex.P8 original report of
Finger Print Bureau with an opinion that “the thumb impressions marked as Q1 is not identical with the Specimen Thumb Impressions marked as S1”. He further deposed that Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 were released on anticipatory bail and
Accused No.4 & Accused No.5 surrendered before the court and were released on 14 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021 bail and on 15/06/2010 effected the arrest of Accused No.3 and produced before the court for judicial custody. PW3 & PW4 stated before him as in Ex.P5 & Ex.P6 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. During the cross examination, PW5 admitted that PW1 stated before him as in Ex.D1. He collected thumb impressions of PW1 during day time. PW2 accompanied PW1 to the police station. LW5/Bhavani is none other than the wife of PW1. He did not summon independent witnesses. As per Ex.P8 accused are not connected to the documents.
25.M. Joshaf, Director of Truth Labs Forensic Services, Banjara Hills is examined as PW6. He deposed that on 21/02/2017 PW1 approached him with certified copy of letter of SHO dated: 13/08/2010 and Certified Copy of GPA dated:
09/11/2011 for Forensic Finger Print Examination. He has examined both documents, Finger Prints and Marked thumb impressions of the complainant on photo copy as “D” and specimen impression of Ramesh Babu on the reverse of the first page of the GPA as “S” for the purpose of scanning. On examination and comparison it is found that the disputed thumb impressions marked as “D” is identical with specimen thumb impression which is marked as “S”. In substantiation of his opinion he has prepared a comparison chart with the help of scanned enlarged copies of Finger Prints showing the reasons for the identity of the thumb impression marked “D” with “S”. The Identical ridge characteristic marked with red 15 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021 ink lines and the nature and location is relative portions are explained in chart. All the ridge characteristics collectives occurring in the same nature, occurrence and relative positions in thumb impressions marked in D and S and hence he is of the opinion that the thumb impressions marked D and S are identical with each other and made by the finger of the same person and gave Ex.P9 his opinion along with photo copy of SHO letter and Certified copy of GPA dated: 09/11/2011.
26.The prosecution examined M. Rajsekhar, Finger Print Expert as PW7. He deposed about receiving of requisition from XXV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ibrahimpatnam to compare the thumb impression of Ramesh Babu with the thumb impressions in the register of volume No.135 of SRO Ibrahimpatnam and accordingly he compared Questioned thumb impressions with specimen thumb impressions and submitted Ex.P10 report stating that the questioned thumb impression marked as Q1 vide document No.6016/2009 dated: 19/11/2009 at cage
No.3, Page No.100 with specimen thumb impression marked as S1 are identical.
The learned counsel for the accused No.1 has cross examined PW7 at length with regard to the manner in which the he compared and gave report.
27.The learned trial court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record gave a finding that mentioned at para No.1 of this Judgment.
16 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
28.As stated supra, aggrieved by the Judgment, the defacto-complainant preferred the present appeal challenging invoking of P.O. Act for the proved offences punishable under sections 419, 420 & 468 r/w 34 of IPC against
Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4. Since there is no challenge of conviction of Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 by the
Respondents/ Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 for offences punishable under section 419, 420 & 468 r/w 34 of IPC so also no challenge for acquittal of Accused No.5 for the offences punishable under section 419, 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC and as only challenge in the present Appeal by the victim for invoking the P.O. Act against Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and Accused
No.4, this Court is not going to re-appreciate the facts and evidence on record and the conviction recorded against Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and
Accused No.4 for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420 & 468 r/w 34 of IPC and acquittal recorded against Respondent/Accused No.5 for the offences punishable under sections a 419, 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC. This court is restricting the scope of appeal to the extent of applicability of P.O. Act against the
Respondents/Accused No.1,Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420 & 468 r/w 34 of IPC and releasing them under section 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 (Act III of 1937).
17 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
Point No.1:
Whether trial court erred in releasing the Respondents/Accused No.1 Accused No.3 & Accused No.4 after admonishing them by invoking Section 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 ( Act III of 1937) for the punishable under Section 419, 420 and 468 r/w 34 of IPC ?
29.The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 ( Act III -1937) is applicable to the offences punishable under Section 379/ or 380/ or 381 /or 404/ or 420 of IPC or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years or with fine or with both under IPC or any other law but not applicable to the offence punishable under section 468 of
IPC.
30.Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents/Accused No.1,
Accused No.3 & Accused No.4 submitted that the Probation of Offenders Act embodies a reformatory theory and the discretion is given to the courts to invoke section 3 & 4 of P.O. Act and as such the trial court rightly exercised its Judicial
Discretion. He relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Yakub Abdul
Razak Memon Vs State of Maharastra reported in (2013) 13 SCC 1, wherein it is held that the grant of Probation involves Judicial discretion, that the court must consider the age, character, antecedents and circumstances and such discretion must be exercised responsibly and with due case.
18 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
31.For the purpose of better Appreciation, this Court intends to reiterate the
Provisions of Section 3 & Section 4 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 and
Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Section 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act 1936 - Power of Court to release
ff certain o enders after admonition:- ff In any case in which a person is found guilty of the o ence of theft,
dishonest misappropriation, or cheating punishable under
ff
Indian Penal Code or of any o ence punishable with not more
than two years imprisonment and no previous conviction is
proved against him, the Court by which he is found guilty may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the ffff o ence or any extenuating circumstances under which the o ence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 - Power of court to release
ff certain o enders on probation of good conduct :
(1) When any person not under twenty one years of age is found ff
guilty of an o ence punishable with imprisonment for not more
than seven years or when any person under twenty one years or age ff of any woman is found guilty of an o ence not punishable with death or transportation for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the ff o ender, if it appears to the court by which he is found guilty, regard being had to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental ffff condition of the o ender and to the circumstances in which the o ence ff was committed, that it is expedient that the o ender should be released on probation of good conduct, the court may; instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior; 19 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
Provided that the court shall not direct the release of an ff o ender under this section, unless it is satisfied that the ff o ender or one of his sureties (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place for which the court ff acts or in which the o ender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions.
ff (2) Where the o ender referred to in sub-section (1) is under twenty- four years of age, the court may make a supervision order directing that ffffi such o ender shall be under the supervision of such probation o cer as may be named in the order during the period specified therein and imposing such other conditions for securing such supervision as may be specified in the order;
Provided that the period so specified shall not extend beyond ff the date on which, in the opinion of the court, the o ender will attain the age of twenty-five years.
(3) A court making a supervision order under sub-section (2) shall ff require the o ender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants and any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same ff (4) A court making a supervision order shall furnish to the o ender and the sureties, if any, a notice in writing stating in simple terms the conditions of the bond.
Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958- Power of court to release
certain offenders after admonition:
When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, ( 45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by 20 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021 which the person is found guilty is of the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition.
Explanation : For the purpose of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4.
32.In the present case, the Respondents/Accused No.1 was aged 32 years,
Respondent/Accused No.3 was aged 35 years and Respondent/Accused No.4 was aged 51 years as on the date of proved offences registered against them and as they are more than 21 years of age as on the date of such offences the question of invoking Section 4 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 against them does not arise. Even it is not that the trial court has invoked section 4 of A.P. Probation of
Offenders Act, 1936 against the Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and
Accused No.4 as such there is no need to discuss with regard to section 4 of A.P.
Probation of Offenders Act, 1936.
33.The recitals of impugned Judgment show that the trial court has invoked section 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420 & 468 r/w 34 which were proved against the
Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4. The Punishment 21 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021 prescribed for the Offence under section 419 of IPC is of imprisonment which may extend to three years or fine or both and the punishment prescribed for the offence under section 468 of IPC is imprisonment which may extent to seven years and fine. Admittedly, as referred supra, both proved offences punishable under section 419 & 468 do not fall in the category of any of offences mentioned Section 3 of A.P.
Probation Act, 1936 or Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and thereby the learned trial court erred while passing sentence in invoking Section 3 of A.P. Probation Act, 1936 in releasing the Respondents/ Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and Accused
No.4 after admonition. Hence, the point No.1 is answered infavour of the Appellant and against the Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4
Point No.2:
Whether the Appellant has got statutory right to prefer appeal challenging the sentence?
34.The Appellant who is defacto-complainant / victim has preferred the present appeal under section 372 of Cr.P.C. challenging quantum of sentence imposed by releasing the Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 & Accused No.4 under
Section 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel for the
Respondents/ Accused No.1, Accused No.3 & Accused No.4 submitted that the
Appellant who is victim is not entitled to prefer Appeal under section 372 of Cr.P.C.
Hence, this court intends to reiterate the provisions of Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
22 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
For better appreciation, this court intends to reiterate the provisions of
Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.
No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force.
[Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.] [Inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 29.]
35.In the present case, the Appeal preferred is not challenging the acquittal of the Respondent/Accused No.5. It is also not filed challenging the conviction of
Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 & Accused No.4 challenging the conviction for lesser offence so also this appeal is not filed challenging inadequate compensation. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the
Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 & Accused No.4 that the present appeal is not filed basing on the any of the grounds referred under section 372 of
Cr.P.C and hence, this Appeal is not maintainable under section 372 of Cr.P.C.
23 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
36.The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is entitled to prefer appeal under section 11 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground of wrong quoting of provision of Law.
On this aspect, he relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan reported in 2013 Supreme( Raj) 1105 in between Jabbar Singh Vs State of
Rajasthan and others, wherein the offenders were released on Probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, the Appeal was preferred by the victim under section 372 of Cr.P.C. In the above Judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of
Rajasthan held that Section 11 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provides an appeal, yet technicalities cannot triumph over the substantial Justice and non- mentioning of a correction section will not debar the rightful claimant from the due relief and further treated the appeal filed under section 372 of Cr.P.C as an appeal under section 11 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The case law relied by the learned counsel for the Appellant is squarely applicable to the present case facts.
37. Now, this court intends to reiterate the provisions of Section 11 of P.O. Act.
11. Courts competent to make order under the Act, appeal and revision and powers of courts in appeal and revision.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, an order under this Act, may be made by any court empowered to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment and also by the High Court or any other court when the case comes before it on appeal or in revision.
24 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, where an order under
section 3 or section 4 is made by any court trying the offender (other than a
High Court), an appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie
from the sentences of the former court.
(3) In any case where any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence and the court by which he is found guilty declines to deal with him under section 3 or section 4, and passes against him any sentence of imprisonment with or without fine from which no appeal lies or is preferred, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former court may, either of its own motion or on an application made to it by the convicted person or the probation officer, call for and examine the record of the case and pass such order thereon as it thinks fit.
(4) When an order has been made under section 3 or section 4 in respect of
an offender, the Appellate Court or the High Court in the exercise of its power
of revision may set aside such order and in lieu thereof pass sentence on
such offender according to law.
Provided that the Appellate Court or the High Court in revision shall not inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the court by which the offender was found guilty.
38.Therefore, as per section 11(2) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 the appeal lies against the order passed under section 3 or section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 and the case law relied by the learned counsel for the
Appellant is applicable subject to application of Probation of Offenders Act,1958 in the State of Telangana as on the date of passing sentence by the learned trial court.
25 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
39. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial court has failed to recognize that Andhra Pradesh Probation of Offenders Act, 1937 is suspended by virtue of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958, which came into force subsequently. He further submitted that when there is in consistencies in between old state legislation and new central legislation, the old Act cannot be applied violating the new act, and in such case, doctrine of repugnancy kicks in and that the central act prevails over the state act and the same is mentioned under the Article 254 of the Constitution Act.
40.Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents/Accused No.1,
Accused No.3 & Accused No.4 submitted that after formation of the State of
Telangana, the Government of Telangana through G.O.Ms.No.45 LAW (F)
Department dated: 01/06/2016 adopted the Andhra Pradesh Probation of
Offenders Act, 1936 and to read such act as Telangana Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 (Act III of 1937) and therefore, in the year 2016, the Government of
Telangana adopted the Andhra Pradesh Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 and issued G.O. to read it as Telangana Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 (Act III of 1937) and since State Legislation is latest one than Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which is Central Act and further submitted that Article 254(1) of Constitution,
Central Acts typically prevail over State Acts under Article 254 (1), unless the
State Act has Presidential assent (254(2)). Hence, For the purpose of better 26 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021 appreciation, this court intends to reiterate Section 101 of A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014.
Power to adopt Laws: 101:
For the purpose of felicitating the application in relation to the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana of any law made before the appointed day, the appropriate government may before the expiration of two years from the day by order make such adoptions and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal, or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon very such law shall have effect subject to the adoptions and modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority.
41.Therefore, the Government of Telangana by invoking the power delegated under section 101 of THE ANDHRA PRADESH REORGANISATION ACT, 2014, issued above G.O.Ms.No.45 LAW (F) Department dated: 01/06/2016, wherein the
Government of Telangana has adopted A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1937 and renamed it as Telangana Probation of Offenders Act, 1937. Therefore, the prevailing Law existing as on the date of Judgment by learned trial court is
Telangana Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 which is nothing but A.P. Probation of
Offenders Act, 1936. Therefore, the Telangana Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 is latest Law applicable in the State of Telangana than the the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958. There is nothing placed on record by the learned counsel for the
Appellant before the court showing applicability of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in the State of Telangana after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.45. Therefore, this 27 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021 court is of the opinion that the prevailing law applicable in the sate of Telangana is “Telangana Probation of Offenders Act, 1936”
42.As stated supra, since the Appellant failed to show the applicability of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in the state of Telangana, the Appellant is not entitled to prefer Appeal by invoking section 11(2) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. On the other hand, admittedly there is no provision under Telangana
Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 giving statutory right to the defacto-complainant/ victim to prefer appeal challenging the order passed under section 3 and 4 of T.S.
Probation of offenders Act, 1936. Hence, the Point No.2 is answered against the
Appellant.
Point No.3:
Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any illegality/irregularity warranting interference by this Court?
43.This court while answering the point No.1 held that the trial court erred in invoking section 3 of A.P. Probation of Offenders Act, 1936 for the proved offences under section 419 and 468 of IPC against Respondents/Accused No.1, Accused
No.3 and Accused No.4. However, in view of answering the Point No.2 against the
Appellant, there is no need to answer the point No.3.
28 of 28 Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2021
Point No.4:
44.In view of answering the point No.2 against the Appellant, this court is of the opinion that the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
45.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Typed by the Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 14 thday of May, 2026.
XV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(Witnesses examined and exhibits marked) -Nil-
XV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.