IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MEDAK
PRESENT: Sri S. NARAYANA, VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak.
Tuesday, 20 th day of October, 2020
Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2017
Between:-
1) Yenishetty Ramulu S/o Bhadraiah, Aged 58 years, Occupation: Business,
2) Tatipally Krishna S/o Rangaiah, Aged 40 yrs., Occupation: Business,
3) Shaik Akthar S/o Rahim, Aged 38 yrs., Occupation: Petty Business,
4) Yenishetti Raju S/o Dubbaiah, Aged 43 yrs., Occupation: Business,
5) Yenishetti Sheker S/o Rajesham, Aged 40 yrs., Occupation:Business,
6) Yenishetti Parameshwar S/o Dubbaiah, Aged 48 yrs., Occupation: Business,
7) Md. Amjad S/o Rasheed, Aged 36 yrs., Occupation: Petty Business,
8) Md. Afzal S/o Sardar Ali, Aged 30 yrs., Occupation:Petty Business,
All are R/o Ramayampet Village & Mandal, Medak District.
…Appellants
A N D
The State of Telangana through P.S. Ramayampet.
...Respondent
Aggrieved by the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated
02-6-2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special
Mobile Court, Medak in
C.C. No. 530 of 2017
Between:-
The State of Telangana through P.S., Ramayampet. …Complainant 2 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2017
VIII AD & SJ
A N D
1) Yenishetty Ramulu S/o Bhadraiah, Aged 58 years, Occupation: Business,
2) Tatipally Krishna S/o Rangaiah, Aged 40 yrs., Occupation: Business,
3) Shaik Akthar S/o Rahim, Aged 38 yrs., Occupation: Petty Business,
4) Yenishetti Raju S/o Dubbaiah, Aged 43 yrs., Occupation: Business,
5) Yenishetti Sheker S/o Rajesham, Aged 40 yrs., Occupation:Business,
6) Yenishetti Parameshwar S/o Dubbaiah, Aged 48 yrs., Occupation: Business,
7) Md. Amjad S/o Rasheed, Aged 36 yrs., Occupation: Petty Business,
8) Md. Afzal S/o Sardar Ali, Aged 30 yrs., Occupation:Petty Business,
All are R/o Ramayampet Village & Mandal, Medak District.
...Accused No.1 & 8
This Criminal Appeal having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Subash Chandra Goud, Sri G. Santhosh Reddy, Advocates for Appellants/Accused No.1 to 8 and of Sri S. Chandra Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This is a Criminal Appeal filed U/s 374 of Criminal Procedure Code against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Medak (in short trial Court)
thereby challenging the validity and legality of the Judgment, Dated 02-6-2017 passed in C.C.No.530 of 2017 by the said Court convicting them under Section 252 Cr.P.C. and sentencing the accused No.1 to 8 for the offence punishable under Section 270 of Indian Penal Code to undergo 3 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2017
VIII AD & SJ
Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days, and to pay a Fine of
Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of Fine the accused shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days.
The Accused No.1 to 8 also sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 273 of Indian Penal Code to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days, and to pay a Fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of Fine the accused shall further undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days (Total Fine amount is
Rs.16,000/-).
2.For the sake of convenience and for better understanding the parties to the case will be referred as arrayed in the case before trial Court.
3.The fact leading to filing the present appeal as stated in the charge sheet before trial Court in brief is that the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.
Ramayampet filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No. 97 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 270, 273 of I.P.C., and Section 20(2) R/w 7(2) of Cigarette and Tobacco product Act, alleging that the accused were running kirana shops in Ramayampet village and they are illegally selling Tobacco products in their shops for earning money easily.
When the LW6/T.Nagarjuna Goud, SI of Police, P.S. Ramayampet on reliable information he along with his staff raided their shop and seized the case properties under cover of seizure panchanama and accused confessed the offence that he purchased the case property and selling to customers for illegal profits. Basing on the panchanama registered the case and investigated into. During the course of investigation examined the witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet alleging that the accused are committed the offence punishable under Secs. 270, 273 of I.P.C., and Sec.20(2) R/w 7(2) of Cigarette and Tobacco product Act.
4 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2017
VIII AD & SJ
4.The trial Court took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 270, 273 of I.P.C., and Section 20(2) R/w 7(2) of Cigarette and Tobacco product Act against the accused No.1 to 6. The accused No.1 to 8 appeared
before the trial Court and were furnished with copies of documents
compliance under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and examined them U/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 270, 273 of I.P.C., and Section 20(2)
R/w 7(2) of Cigarette and Tobacco product Act, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language by the trial Court, and accused having understood the same admitted their guilty of offence. Basing on their admission the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile
Court, Medak convicted them under Section 252 Cr.P.C. and sentenced the accused No.1 to 8 for the offence punishable under Section 270 of Indian
Penal Code to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days, and to pay a Fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of Fine the accused shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days. The Accused No.1 to 8 are also sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 273 of Indian Penal Code to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days, and to pay a Fine of
Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of Fine the accused shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days (Total Fine amount is Rs.16,000/-).
5.The appellants aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment in the impugned Judgment of trial Court the appellants/Accused No.1 to 8 herein preferred this appeal with grounds of appeal of which the core of the contention is as follows;
Grounds of Appeal:
6.The Judgment under appeal is against the Law and facts on record, the trial Court has commited great error in accepting the testimony of 5 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2017
VIII AD & SJ
prosecution case being in admissible, manifestly erroneous and the conviction is utterly unsustainable and bad in law. When the Police arrested the accused and produced before the Court, at the time of producing the accused the Police officials forced the accused to admit the offence, and as per the instructions of Police, the appellants/accused admitted the offences
before the lower Court, infact the accused are not committed any offences
as alleged by the Police, Ramayampet. Only believing the directions of
Police the appellants were admitted the offence before lower Court, and however not considering their plea, the lower Court instead of imposing
Fine convicted the appellants/accused and sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of (7) seven days. With these main contention the Judgment of conviction and sentence under appeal be set-a-side.
7.On registration of the appeal a due notice was ordered to the State representing by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, the same was duly served. On the receipt of the material papers from the trial Court, hearing of the appeal was taken up. During the course of appeal both sides submitted their detailed arguments, thereafter appeal is coming for passing of the Judgment.
8.In the light of rival contentions the following points that arise for consideration.
i) Whether the Judgment of conviction of the lower Court is sustainable under Law and the accused are entitled for acquittal in the facts and circumstances of the case?
ii) To what result?
9.Point No.1:
The appellants herein are the accused No.1 to 8 for the offence under Sections 270, 273 of I.P.C., and Section 20(2) R/w 7(2) of Cigarette 6 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2017
VIII AD & SJ
and Tobacco product Act. The Police raided the shop of accused/appellants on reliable information and the Police seized the case properties in this case from the respective shops and arrested the appellants/accused and produced before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court,
Medak. At that time Police instructed them admit the offence before the said Court stating the lower Court only impose Fine for the said offences.
Accordingly, they voluntarily admitted their guilty of offence before lower
Court for the said offences and the lower Court convicted the appellants under Section 252 of Cr.P.C. upon hearing the quantum of sentence imposed against the appellants/accused, they pleaded mercy and to take lenient view by saying that they got wife and children. The lower Court convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 270 of
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days, and to pay a Fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of Fine the accused shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days. The Accused No.1 to 8 are also sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 273 of Indian Penal Code to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days, and to pay a
Fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of Fine the accused shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) days (Total
Fine amount is Rs.16,000/-).
10.Basing on the Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Special Mobile Court, Medak this Court finds that there are material in this case, that there are illegalities and irregularities, therefore, the lower Court has exercised its power on the basis of the voluntarily plead guilty and convicted the Appellants/accused No.1 to 8 and however the prosecution did not chose to adduce any evidence, basing on their 7 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2017
VIII AD & SJ
voluntarily plead guilty only, which is unsustainable under Law, therefore the sentence of imprisonment for (7) Seven days for the respective offences is sustainable under Law. The approach of the trial Court is not convincing since the same is not in accordance with Law. By taking all these things into consideration, this Court admits that it is just and appropriate to modify the sentence of trail Court by confirming the imposing Fine amount to the appellants. As discussed under above in the point the finding of the trial Court found fault to undergo imprisonment is not on correct lines, and imposing fine amount is on correct lines.
Accordingly the point is answered.
11.Point No.2: In the result, the appeal is allowed partly, thereby conviction and sentence of appellants for the offences punishable under
Sections 270, 273 of I.P.C., in the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.530 of 2017, dated 2nd June, 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Special Mobile Court, Medak is set-a-side and the FINE amount
imposed by the lower Court is CONFIRMED. The office is directed to send back the case record to the trial Court. The order passed with regard to the case property by the Lower Court is confirmed.
Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 20 th day of October, 2020.
VIII Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge,
Medak.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
BOTH SIDES: N I L
VIII Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge, Medak.