KOLIPAKA VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision has been preferred under Sec. 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C.,') challenging the judgment dtd. 8/6/2010 in Crl.A.No.247 of 2006 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna District at Vijayawada, confirming the judgment dtd. 7/11/2006 in C.C.No.504 of 2003 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the Petitioner/sole Accused was found guilty of the offence under Sec. 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.,') and convicted under Sec. 248(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also a fine of Rs.5,000.00, and in default of payment of fine, the Petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that there was no identification of property marked under Ex.M.O.Nos.1 to 5; the learned courts below failed to appreciate the admission of P.W.1 that there was no other person, when he identified the property in the Police Station and no proof to show that the property belongs to him; the Petitioner was wrongfully confined by the Police on 11/7/2003 at Vijayawada and his articles were taken away high handedly; he also claimed some articles by filing return of property petition; to prove the said contentions, he himself was examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D1 and D2, which were fax messages sent by his wife to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 21/7/2003; to escape from the illegal detention of the Petitioner, the Police had registered three crimes with the same offence by mentioning different dates, and one of three cases got acquitted and in the remaining two cases, the Petitioner got conviction, that itself shows that the Police had registered false cases against the Petitioner, and therefore, it is urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court and acquit the Petitioner.