ORDER : The Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C .,’) against the judgment in Crl.A.No.49 of 2010 passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam confirming the conviction against Revisionist for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) while reducing the simple imprisonment from six months to one month against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class (Prohibition and Excise), Srikakulam in C.C.No.343 of 2008 whereunder the Revisionist was convicted for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C’ and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six month. 2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Deepak Misra, learned Counsel for the Revisionist argued that there was no direct evidence about the identity of the Revisionist as thief; there was no recovery of goods from the Revisionist; evidence of P.W.5 was inconsistent and P.W.3 did not support the version of the prosecution in total. Therefore, the Revisionist is deserved to be acquitted. Alternatively, it is submitted that the revisionist at the time of the alleged offence was aged about 28 years and was a coolie; nearly 17 years have passed by; he had suffered a lot of mental agony; now he is aged about 45 years; he has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider the case of the revisionist sympathetically and requested to impose sentence to which he had already undergone. 4. Per contra, Ms.Akhila, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that as the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Revisionist and the learned Appellate Court rightly confirmed it. There are no material irregularities, the judgment is correct, legal and proper and urged to dismiss the revision. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. This Court has perused the record thoroughly. There are no material irregularities, the judgment is correct, legal and proper and urged to dismiss the revision. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. This Court has perused the record thoroughly. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.49 of 2010 dated 01.02.2011, passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Srikakulam, District, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 6. The prosecution examined the six witnesses and got marked six exhibits and five material objects. It was the case of the prosecution that on 3/4.3.2008 between 6:00 P.M., and 6:30 A.M., the Revisionist had gained entry into Sri Srinivasa Prardhana Mandiram, Etcherla Village by breaking open the lock of iron grills and Garbhagudi (sanctum sanctorum) and committed theft of one Silver Jandhyam, one Silver Vaddanam, one pair of Silver Murugulu weighing in total 26 tolas which were decorated to the idol of lord Venkateswara Swamy and decamped with booty worth Rs.5,000/-. The theft was noticed on 04.03.2008 during the wee hours by Patnala Nageswara Rao (P.W.1) and informed the same to Gurupalli Jaggunaidu (P.W.2) and Patnala Suribabu. Later a Police report was given under Ex.P.W.1. The Assistant Superintendent of Police (P.W.4) had registered Ex.P1 as a case in Crime No. 46 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ on 04.03.2008 at about 09:30 A.M., and took up the investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, observed the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators and prepared scene observation report and seized broken locks and drew rough sketch of the scene of offence. 7. In the course of investigation, Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.6) arrested the Revisionist with the assistance of Sri B.Gopalarao, Sub-Inspector of Police and other staff and recovered the stolen property. P.W.6 recovered gold chain relating to Crime No.448 of 2008 of J.R.Puram Police Station. Basing on the confession of the Revisionist and got conducted test identification parade of stolen property through K.Ramarao (P.W.3) and Jarugula Sankararao (P.W.5) on 08.03.3008 at about 04:00 P.M., wherein P.W.1 identified the stolen properties. Later P.W.6 filed Charge Sheet. 8. P.W.6 recovered gold chain relating to Crime No.448 of 2008 of J.R.Puram Police Station. Basing on the confession of the Revisionist and got conducted test identification parade of stolen property through K.Ramarao (P.W.3) and Jarugula Sankararao (P.W.5) on 08.03.3008 at about 04:00 P.M., wherein P.W.1 identified the stolen properties. Later P.W.6 filed Charge Sheet. 8. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of ‘the I.P.C.’ After appearance of the Revisionist before the learned Magistrate copies of documents were furnished to the Revisionist as mandated under Section 207 of ‘the Cr.P.C .’ The Revisionist was examined under Section 239 of ‘the Cr.P.C .,’ and the charges were framed against the Revisionist, read over and explained them in Telugu, but the Revisionist denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. After the completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Magistrate examined the Revisionist under Section 313 of ‘the Cr.P.C .,’ and put to him the incriminating evidence appearing against him, the Revisionist denied the incriminating evidence against him and reported to evidence. After hearing of the arguments of the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the Revisionist, the learned Magistrate found the Revisionist guilty for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C .,’ and on hearing of the quantum of sentence, the Revisionist was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 10. Challenging his conviction and sentence the Revisionist preferred Appeal before learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam and the same was modified confirming the conviction of the Revisionist for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ but reduced the quantum of sentence of simple imprisonment from six months to one month. 11. The Revisionist was convicted for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as he was found in possession of M.Os 1 to 3 within a short span of three days from the date of commission of the offence. Indeed, the property recovered is unique in nature, normally being used for the deities in temples and it is not ordinarily available in the open market. Indeed, the property recovered is unique in nature, normally being used for the deities in temples and it is not ordinarily available in the open market. The Revisionist merely denied the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of the prosecution and he did not give any plausible and convincing explanation for possession of the stolen property with him. Even as per Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Revisionist had to account for his possession the stolen property, otherwise it had to be presumed that the Revisionist either committed the theft or in possession of the stolen property which was known to him as stolen property. 12. Albeit, there is no evidence forthcoming that the Revisionist has committed the offence of theft, he was found in possession of the stolen property within three days from the date of commission of the offence. Even though P.W.3 and P.W.5 had not supported the case of the prosecution, P.W.5 deposed that M.Os.1 to 3 traced from one person. Although P.W.5 deposed that he did not know the Revisionist, he admitted that he signed on Mediators Report (Ex.P6). P.W.5 admitted in his cross-examination that the Police arrested the Revisionist in his presence and seized M.Os 1 to 3 from his possession. 13. Evidence of a hostile witness can be taken into account as per the decision of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, [ AIR 1976 SC 202 ] . Evidence of hostile witness cannot be totally discarded and in certain circumstances it can be taken into account to prove the presence at the scene of offence, to fix the place of occurrence, such portions of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses can be relied on as laid down in Rajaram v. State of A.P., [1978 Crl.L.J 196 (All.)]. 14. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar , [ (2002) 6 SCC 650 ] wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under: “12. 14. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar , [ (2002) 6 SCC 650 ] wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under: “12. … We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub- section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. 13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v. Nosibolla, [ AIR 1951 SC 196 ] at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C ., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has of right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of AP, [ AIR 1962 SC 1788 ] at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub- section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.” 17. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C ., cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second Appellate Court. Re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh , D Stephens and K Chinnaswamy Reddy. 18. It is an admitted fact that the Revisionist has not claimed M.Os 1 to 3 as his own property and P.W.1 claimed that M.Os 1 to 3 are the property belonging to the temple. Evidence of Police Officer/Investigating Officer cannot be taken away lightly in the absence of any animosity attributed to the Police Officer against the Revisionist. 18. It is an admitted fact that the Revisionist has not claimed M.Os 1 to 3 as his own property and P.W.1 claimed that M.Os 1 to 3 are the property belonging to the temple. Evidence of Police Officer/Investigating Officer cannot be taken away lightly in the absence of any animosity attributed to the Police Officer against the Revisionist. The learned Trial Court and also the Appellate Court had rightly convicted the Revisionist for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. The learned Appellate Court more liberally reduced the quantum of sentence of simple imprisonment from six months to one month, without assigning any special reasons in that regard. As seen from the entire record, there is no illegality or impropriety on any finding recorded by the learned Courts below. There is no perversity of the finding. There are no grounds let alone material grounds to interfere with the conviction confirmed by the learned I Appellate Court. The learned Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence on record. There is no error let alone material or paulpable error in the findings of the Trial Court either in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On perusal of the entire material, there is neither defect in law nor procedure. However, there is neither misconception nor misreading of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel for the Revisionist is unable to submit that either the learned Trial Court or the Appellate Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction or there was there was an occasion of wrongly exercising the jurisdiction. The evidence forthcoming clearly discloses that the Revisionist had committed an offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. Even though there is no direct evidence available as to the identity of the Revisionist as thief, possession of the stolen articles M.Os 1 to 3 which are unique in nature, not ordinarily available in any market and the Revisionist was bound to explain his possession of the articles within a short span of the commission of the offence and the recovery of the articles from him. 19. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the revisionist. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court confirmed the same. 20. 19. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the revisionist. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court confirmed the same. 20. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar , [ AIR 1979 SC 1360 ] . This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar, [2000 (1) BLJR 37]. 21. The offence took place on 3/4.3.2008. Nearly 17 years passed by. The Revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 17 years. He underwent detention for more than eighty four (84) days either during remand period or post conviction period. Therefore, it is appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to be reduced to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist. 22. Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of sentencing the Revisionist to undergo the imprisonment already undergone by the Revisionist. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.