PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANDHRA Vs. PALAPATI RAMAKRISHNAIAH
LAWS(APH)-1955-2-22
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 17,1955

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANDHRA Appellant
VERSUS
PALAPATI RAMAKRISHNAIAH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VIJAY MOHAN JADHAV @ NANU [LAWS(BOM)-2021-11-124] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In this case, the State Government seeks to have the conviction of the respondent quashed. The respondent was charge - sheeted under Ss. 454 and 380, Penal Code before the Stationary Sub Magistrate. Kavali, the case against him being that he broke into house of one Danam Annamma P. W. 1 in the case at about 10-30 A. M. and stole a sum of Rs. 10.00 in cash and some old clothes worth about Rs. 65.00. According to P. W. 1, she locked here house and went out at about 10-30 A. M. on to a relatives house and returned shortly thereafter to find the back door of her house open and some clothes and cash lost.Sometime later in the day, the accused was apprehended with all the things lost. P. W. 1 was corroborated by P. W. 2, her husband . A charge was framed against him under S. 379, Penal Code. and he pleaded guilty. He was additionally charged under S. 75 Penal Code for having been previously convicted by the Additional First Clss Magistrate. Vellore to two years rigorous imprisonment. To this charge also he pleaded guilty. In view of the circumstance that the accused was found in possession of all the goods lost immediately after the theft and the admission of the guilt, the Magistrate convicted him under S. 379, and sentenced him to six months regorous imprisonment. It is this conviction and sentence that are sought to be quashed by the State Government.
(2.)Revision dismissed It is urged by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the provisions of S. 348, Cr. P. C. read with S. 75 I. P. C. the Magistrate ought to have committed the accused to sessions. The accused had a number of convictions and the Second Class Magistrate was not competent to punish him adequately, so runs the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor. It is further argued that the procedure followed by the Magistrate is opposed to R. 95 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.
(3.)To appreciate this argument, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of law. Section 75, I. P. C. is in these words :
"Whoever having been convicted by a Court in India, of an offence punishable under Chap. 12 or Chap. 17 of the Code with impresonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards, shall be guilty of any offence purnishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to transportation for life, or to imprisonment of either description for a term which mahy extend to ten years"
.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.