HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1286 OF 2006 Dated 23-1-2014 Between:
Kondapally Kamalakar Rao.
And:
…Petitioner.
The State through District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and others.
… Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1286 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is against the judgment dated 17-4- 2006 in C.C.No.29 of 1997 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
The revision petitioner herein is P.W.8 in C.C.No.29 of 1997 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar. He is a land owner and his lands in Kamalapur village o f Dharmapuri Mandal were acquired for Sriramsagar canal. A reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (For short ‘Act’) for enhancement of compensation in O.P.No.723 of 1985 and the amounts deposited to the credit of O.P. have been withdrawn by second respondent herein and on a complaint made by the District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, C.C.No.29 of 1997 is registered and trial court after examining thirteen witnesses and marking thirty one documents acquitted the second respondent herein and another and aggrieved by the acquittal against the second respondent herein, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the trial court acquitted the second respondent herein in spite of voluminous material against him for the charges under Sections 193, 196, 197, 199, 200, 205, 209, 403, 419, 468, 471 and 420 read with 120-B I.P.C. and failed to consider documentary evidence which would clinchingly prove the charges levelled against the second respondent herein.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
6. POINT:
This C.C.No.29 of 1997 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar is registered on a complaint given by District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar under Section 340(1) (b) Cr.P.C.
7. According to complaint, the second respondent herein and another by name M.Hanumantha Rao filed a cheque petition supported by an affidavit, payment schedule and full satisfaction memo before the District Court, Karimnagar for issuance of cheque for Rs.2,24,904-73ps by forging signature of a dead person (B.Gangaram) and fraudulently obtained the cheque and wrongly withdrawn the enhanced compensation by impersonating as B.Gangaram’ a dead person. It is further alleged that the complainant with the second respondent herein and the said Hanumantharao knowingly filed cheque petition impersonating B.Gangaram and thereby, committed offences under Sections 191,192 or 193 or 194 or 195 I.P.C. It is further alleged that A.2 being practising advocate prepared affidavit of B.Gangaram and A.1 signed on the affidavit as Gangaram (dead person) and filed the cheque petition and thereby, committed offence under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is further alleged that A.1 made a declaration that he is B.Gangaram (dead person) and thereby, committed offence under Section 199 I.P.C.
8. It is further alleged that by impersonating the second respondent herein and the said Hanumantharao committed the offence under Sections 205 I.P.C., 209 I.P.C., 403 I.P.C. It is further alleged that due to the said impersonation, they induced the court to deliver compensation amount of Rs.2,24,903-73ps and thereby, committed offence under Section 419 I.P.C. It is further alleged that second respondent herein by forging the signature of B.Gangaram (dead person), committed offence under Section 468 I.P.C. It is further alleged that second respondent herein and Hanumantharao used forged document as a genuine document and thereby, committed offence under Section 471 I.P.C. and by dishonestly inducing the District Court, Karimnagar to deliver property belonging to the original owner of the land, committed offence under Section 420 I.P.C. It is further alleged that second respondent herein and Hanumantharao conspired together in committing all these offences.
9. On these allegations, the trial court examined thirteen witnesses. P.W.1 is one of the ryot whose land was also acquired. According to him, his money was also withdrawn. P.W.2 is the Mandal Revenue Officer at the relevant point of time who issued certified copy of pahani for the years 1968, 69 to 73 and 74. P.W.3 is an attender in Grampanchayat Office, Dharmapuri who was examined by the District Judge, Karimnagar during the enquiry and who stated about the death of Gangaram. P.W.4 was the then Patwari of Thimmapur village. P.W.5 is the Executive Officer of Panchayat who issued death certificate of Gangaram. PW.6 is the former Executive Officer of Grampanchayat, Dharmapuri. P.W.7 is the person whose family lands are also acquired. P.W.8 is the revision petitioner whose lands were also acquired. P.W.9 is the Depot Manager of A.P.S.R.T.C., Jagityal who is examined to show that second respondent is an employee of their Depot at Jagityal. P.W.10 is the then Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad who deposed about opening of an account in the name of B.Gangaram on 27-3-1989.
P.W.11 is the accountant in State Bank of Hyderabad at the relevant point of time who made entry for the cheque amount of Rs.2,24,904-73ps. P.W.12 is the Central Nazir of District Court, Karimnagar and P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer.
10. None of these witnesses have stated anything with regard to the alleged conspiracy to second respondent and A.2 Hanumantharao. The Bank Manager who was examined as P.W.10 deposed only that an account is opened in the name of B.Gangaram on 27-3- 1989. But he assertively stated that he does not know who opened that account. When the allegation is that the second respondent herein impersonated as B.Gangaram for withdrawing compensation amount from the court, the prosecution must prove that allegation with cogent and convincing evidence. Here the entire episode is on the basis of a news item published in a News Paper. The Investigating Officer has not collected any signatures or handwriting of Second respondent herein to send them to any handwriting expert to show that the affidavit filed in support of cheque petition bears the hand writing or signatures of second respondent herein. P.W.8 deposed in his evidence that their lands were acquired in an extent of Ac.3-29 guntas for Sriramsagar canal in or about 1970. He deposed that lands of his neighbouring ryots were also acquired and they received compensation for their respective lands in the year 1989. He deposed that P.W.4 informed him that they received compensation for their lands and enquired him about his compensation and that he made enquiries but according to him, he could only get information about his O.P. number in the year 1995 and then only he came to know that there was withdrawal of their amount in the year 1989 itself. Here though P.W.8 is aware of the fact that his neighbouring ryots got their compensation amount in the year 1989, he was not diligent to enquire about his compensation amount till 1995. None of the witnesses deposed anything with regard to the alleged cheating and alleged impersonation. The learned trial judge after considering all these aspects held that prosecution is not able to prove the charges levelled against the second respondent i.e., A.1.
11. On a verification of records, I am of the view that the learned trial judge has not committed any illegality in assessing evidence on record. Though advocate for revision petitioner contended that there is voluminous documentary record to prove the allegation, the same cannot be accepted because mere producing document is not sufficient and they must be proved with convincing evidence. The allegation is that second respondent herein signed the affidavit filed in support of cheque petition as B.Gangaram (a dead person) and he has withdrawn the amount. That affidavit is not marked as a document and there is no material to show that the said affidavit contains the signature or handwriting of second respondent herein. The learned trial judge has correctly appreciated material on record and came to a correct conclusion and I do not find any wrong appreciation in his judgment.
12. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
14. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 23-1-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1286 OF 2006 Dated 23-1-2014 Dvs 7