IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.556 OF 2001

Mallidi Satyanarayana Reddy        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In  the  present  case,  seven  accused  persons,  including  Mallidi

Satyanarayana  Reddy  [A-3],  appellant  herein,  were  charge-sheeted.   Accused  V.

Venkateswara  Rao  [A-2]  died  during  trial  and  trial  in  relation  to  accused  A.B.

Andrews Paul @ Rajan [A-5] was separated as he was declared absconder.  Out of

remaining five accused persons, accused S. Subba Rao [A-4], V. Nanda Gopal [A-6]

and  K.  Hari  [A-7]  were  acquitted  by  the  Trial  Court.   So  far  as  remaining  two

accused persons, namely,  K. Venkateswara Rao [A-1] and Mallidi  Satyanarayana

Reddy [A-3], are concerned, K. Venkateswara Rao [A-1] was convicted under Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”] and sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rupees

four thousand; in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of

six months and Mallidi Satyanarayana Reddy [A-3] was convicted under Section 420

I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and

to  pay  fine  of  Rupees  four  thousand;  in  default,  to  undergo  further   simple

imprisonment  for  a  period of five months.

...2/-

- 2 -  

 Mallidi Satyanarayana Reddy [A-3] was further convicted under Section 471 I.P.C.

and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and

to pay fine of Rupees one thousand; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a

period of six months.  Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

Against  the  order  of  acquittal,  no  appeal  was  preferred  by  the  State

whereas,  on appeal  being  preferred by A-1 and A-3,  Sessions  Court  upheld  their

convictions whereafter a revision application was filed before the High Court, which

has been dismissed by the impugned order.  Against their convictions, A-1 and A-3

filed special leave petitons before this Court.  So far as K. Venkateswara Rao [A-1] is

concerned,  special  leave  petition  filed  by  him  was  dismissed  whereas  leave  was

granted in relation to Mallidi Satyanarayana Reddy [A-3].

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, we

are of the view that the Trial  Court as well  as the Appellate  Court convicted the

appellant  upon  threadbare  discussion  of  evidence  and  the  High  Court  has  not

committed any error in refusing to interfere with the same.

The appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Bail bonds of the appellant, who is on bail, are cancelled and he is directed

to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence for

which the matter must be reported to this Court within two months from the date of

receipt/production of copy of this order.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, December 11, 2008.