Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 30 (AP)

Syed Innu Mulli v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-01-22

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 seeking a direction to modify the order dated 30.10.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2019 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Criminal Appeal was filed against the order in S.C. No. 474 of 2018 passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2. The petitioners are the accused in S.C. No. 474 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, which is filed under number of sections, including the A.P. Forest Act for alleged offence of smuggling of red sanders. A fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- was also imposed by an order dated 20.09.2019. Questioning the same an appeal bearing Crl. Appeal No. 285 of 2019 was filed. In the said appeal a criminal miscellaneous petition was filed for suspension of sentence and the fine. The learned Appellate Judge while granting suspension imposed a condition that the fine amount should be deposited before the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that all the three petitioners are poor people. Therefore, it is his contention that they cannot raise Rs. 3,00,000/- per offender or a total of Rs. 9,00,000/- to avail the benefit of the order of suspension. It is his contention that the petitioners belong to low income group and that their annual income is just in thousands and he relies upon the certificates given by the Tahsildar to show that each of the accused has only meagre income of Rs. 12,500/- to Rs. 25,000/- per annum. Therefore, he contends that the conditions imposed are onerous. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Others vs. Virender Gandhi, 2019 SCC Online (SC) 739 to argue that this is a fit case to relax the condition. Learned counsel also relies upon the orders passed by the learned single judge of this Court for an offence even under the NDPS Act, wherein the petitioners were released on payment of 50% of the fine amount. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand strongly opposed the application and states that red sander smuggling is a very serious offence. It is his contention that the petitioners were guilty of the offence and were found guilty after a full-fledged trial. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand strongly opposed the application and states that red sander smuggling is a very serious offence. It is his contention that the petitioners were guilty of the offence and were found guilty after a full-fledged trial. He points out that even in the lower Court the same argument was advanced that they cannot pay the fine amount on the ground of their poverty. This matter was considered by the trial Court and the same was negatived. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no error committed by the trial Court. He points out that the orders passed in interim applications in Criminal Appeals cannot be used as a precedent. Apart from that he argues that Surinder Singh Deswal case (supra) is a case under Negotiable Instruments Act, which contains a totally different provisions of law. Ultimately, he also points out that the exemption/ relaxation was not fully given by the Supreme Court of India and the time was only extended by another four weeks. He also questions the veracity of the income certificates and their contents. 5. This Court after examining both the submissions notices that there is substantial strength in what is stated by the learned Public Prosecutor. The suspension of sentence is not a matter of right. The same issues were raised in the lower Court and upon the appreciation of the facts and circumstances, the lower Court came to a conclusion that the fine amount should be deposited. The lower Court also noticed that minimum sentence alone was imposed in this case. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also not really applicable to the facts. The interim order passed in Crl. A.M.P. No. 99 of 2014 in Crl. A.M.P. No. 2091 of 2013 in Crl. M.P. No. 1187 of 2013 or the other order passed in Crl. A.M.P. No. 424 of 2016 in Crl. A. No. 260 of 2016 cannot be taken as binding precedent by this Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor the case in Surinder Singh Deswal (supra) was the case under N.I. Act, where also ultimately the Court held that under Article 142 the time should be granted for deposit of the amount. A. No. 260 of 2016 cannot be taken as binding precedent by this Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor the case in Surinder Singh Deswal (supra) was the case under N.I. Act, where also ultimately the Court held that under Article 142 the time should be granted for deposit of the amount. This Court also notices that the certificates of income were given on 01.10.2019 and that the name of the 1st accused is also not tallying. The certificates by themselves cannot be treated as the final word on the income of the petitioners. 6. Apart from all, this Court is of the opinion that the offence alleged against the accused is a heinous offence and this Court finds that as the petitioners were convicted after a full-fledged trial. No specific reasons are also there to relax the conditions imposed by the lower Court. Hence, this Court holds that the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.