HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1873 OF 2007 Dated 16-9-2014 Between:
Kunchala Edukondalu.
..Petitioner.
And:
The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1873 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 15-2-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2005 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District whereunder judgment in C.C.No.838 of 2001 dated 19-1-2005 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, (West and South,L.B.Nagar, R.R.District, is modified.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Station House Officer, Kukatpally filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that de facto complainant in order to perform marriage of her daughter secured Rs.1,00,000/-and on knowing the same, revision petitioner approached her with an intention to cheat her and represented to her that there is a Bank which would give Rs.3,000/- per month as interest on Rs.1,00,000/- and by believing the same, de facto complainant handed over cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused in the presence of Hanumantharao Madhusudhan and that the accused took them to the office of Aneja Group and there handed over fabricated investment receipt to de facto complainant and thereafter, paid the interest at rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for some time and later, he fled away and that on coming to know that the accused cheated her, she lodged a complaint which is registered as crime No.501 of 2001 and investigation revealed that the revision petitioner committed offence under Section 420 I.P.C.
On these allegations, before trial court, three witnesses were examined and three documents were marked on prosecution side and no witness was examined and no document was marked on behalf of accused.
On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer three months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Ranga Reddy District and I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence by confirming the fine amount and set aside the period of three months imprisonment. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioner mainly contended that petitioner is not the beneficiary and that he only accompanied P.W.1 to take her for investment of money but he has not collected any amount from P.W.1 and therefore, conviction for offence under Section 420 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
He further submitted that trial court and appellate court have not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and therefore, conviction recorded against revision petitioner is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of courts below.
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?
POINT:
According to prosecution, revision petitioner induced P.W.1 to part with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby, committed offence of cheating. Out of three witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the de facto complainant, P.W.2 is a witness in whose presence, inducement took place and P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer. T h e de facto complainant-PW.1 in Ex.P.1 complaint stated that the accused is related to her and he made her to invest Rs.1,00,000/- in Aneja Group and that he promised her that he would be surety for money invested and the accused paid interest for one month and thereafter, he has not paid and thereby, he cheated her. P.W.2 deposed in his evidence that P.W.1 paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused in his presence and that accused instigated P.W.1 deposit in Aneja Group company and accordingly, she paid the amount and for one month interest is paid.
P.W.3 Investigating Officer deposed as to the investigation conducted by him. Considering the same, both trial court and appellate court found that there is inducement and parting with money and thereby held that revision petitioner committed offence under Section 420 I.P.C. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on any of the material aspects. The only objection raised on behalf of revision petitioner is that since revision petitioner is not a beneficiary, convicting him under Section 420 I.P.C. is not legal. But as seen from the evidence, it is clear that only at the instance of revision petitioner, P.W.1 parted with money and as per the ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C., prosecution has to prove inducement and parting with money. Here both these ingredients are duly proved, therefore, whether revision petitioner is beneficiary or not, is not material. As per the evidence, only at the instance of revision petitioner, P.W.1 parted with money. Both trial court and appellate court have considered every objection raised on behalf of revision petitioner and came to a right conclusion and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of trial court and appellate court.
As seen from the material, appellate court took a lenient view and set aside the imprisonment of three months and only confirmed the fine amount.
Considering the material on record, I am of the view that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and rightly convicted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings. Therefore, I am of the view that revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming conviction and sentence of the appellate court.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 16-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1873 OF 2007 Dated 16-9-2014