Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It is necessary to set out the factual background of the matter to appreciate the preliminary issue. Background

6. The appellant/A.2 along with A.1 were earlier tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in Sessions Case No.182 of 2012, for offences under sections 302 and 379 of the I.P.C. By a judgment dated 16.07.2012, the appellant/A.2 was acquitted of both the charges under sections 302 and 379 of the I.P.C but was convicted for the offence under section 411 I.P.C. for dishonestly receiving stolen property. The appellant was accordingly sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine. The judgment dated 16.07.2012 forms part of the Records.

The Judgment dated 28.06.2024

12. The judgment dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Criminal Appeal No.737 of 2012 warrants interference despite the fact that the said judgment is not the subject matter of the present Appeal. The judgment dated 28.06.2024 raises questions which are worthy of adjudication.

13. The Appeal before the learned Single Judge related only to the conviction of the appellant/A.2 for the offence under section 411 of the I.P.C. The earlier judgment of the Trial Court dated 16.07.2012 (which was challenged by the appellant before the MB,J & BRMR,J learned Single Judge) records that the appellant/A.2 was acquitted of the offences under sections 302 and 379 of the I.P.C. but was convicted for the offence under section 411 of the I.P.C and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The learned Single Judge framed an issue as to whether the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for dishonestly receiving stolen property was liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge proceeded to engage in an elaborate discussion of the facts before the Trial Court and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the matter afresh with regard to the appellant's acquittal of the offences under sections 302 and 379 of the I.P.C. The Trial Court was however advised to remain uninfluenced by the Court's observations notwithstanding the detailed discussion in the judgment given by the learned Single Judge on the issue of acquittal of the offences under sections 302 and 379 of the I.P.C.

MB,J & BRMR,J

21. It is also significant that the re-trial directed by the learned Single Judge was not related to the conviction of the appellant under section 411 of the IPC but was against the acquittal of the accused under sections 302 and 379 of the IPC. Moreover, section 401(2) of the Cr.P.C mandates that no order under section 401 shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless the accused was given an opportunity of being heard, either personally or through a pleader, in his/her defence. Section 401(3) contains an embargo on the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

22. Even though the learned Single Judge directed the Trial Court to reconsider the matter with regard to the offences under sections 302 and 379 of the IPC, the judgment is replete with observations and findings against the appellant for having wrongly been acquitted of the charges under sections 302 and 379 of the IPC. These findings and observations impinge on the protection granted under section 401 (3) of the Cr.P.C to a person who has already been acquitted by the Trial Court, safeguarding him/her from being convicted of the same offence by the High Court.