Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 197 (AP)

G. Moses Dayakar v. State Of AP

2025-01-30

V.SRINIVAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : (V. SRINIVAS, J.) Assailing the judgment dated 25.07.2018 in Crl.A.No.326 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the judgment dated 24.11.2016 in C.C.No.251 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class at Machilipatnam, for the offences under Section 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 26.07.2018 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in I.A.No.1 of 2018. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that : i). On 11.05.2005, the accused submitted a loan application under SC unemployment scheme with surety certificates and quotation of Padmaja Commercial Corporation at MPDO office, Nagayalanka to the SC Corporation, through MPDO, Nagayalanka. Later the loan was sanctioned to the accused on 11.07.2005 and issued D.No.299109, dated 16.08.2005 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 19.08.2005 in favour of Padmaja Commercial Corporation. ii). On 02.09.2005, the said Padmaja Commercial Corporation delivered the car (Taxi) to the accused. As per the scheme, he has to pay the amount of Rs.2,75,000/-, but he did not pay the same to the society. Later, they calculated the total amount to be paid by the accused with interest is at Rs.3,16,860/- and issued notices to the accused. iii). In the month of April 2012, P.W.1 deputed P.W.2 to enquire the surety holders. On enquiry of P.W.2, P.W.5 who said to be guarantor, denied her signature on the loan application of accused and informed that her signature was forged. Another surety person by name gorumuchu Samuel was died on 25.03.2010. Even receipt of several notices from the Corporation, the accused kept quiet. iv). Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.8-Head Constable Chilakalapudi Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.156 of 2016 under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and investigated into. 4. Another surety person by name gorumuchu Samuel was died on 25.03.2010. Even receipt of several notices from the Corporation, the accused kept quiet. iv). Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.8-Head Constable Chilakalapudi Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.156 of 2016 under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, S.I. of Police laid charge sheet against the accused and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.251 of 2013 on the file of Court of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Machilipatnam, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, vide judgment dated 24.11.2016, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of fifteen (15) days, for the respective offences. All the sentences imposed against the accused shall run concurrently. However, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 406 of IPC. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.326 of 2016, before the Court of learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 25.07.2018, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Sri D.S.N.V.Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. 7. Heard Sri D.S.N.V.Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri D.S.N.V.Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner did not commit any offence; that P.W.1 sanctioned the loan after verification of all the documents; that the testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon to convict the accused for the said offences; that only due to the pressure made by the police, P.W.5 given false evidence against the accused; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner for the said offences and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 8 and D.W.1 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.4 categorically proved the dishonest intention of the accused to cheat the SC and ST Corporation by submitting the application with forged signatures of P.W.5 as one of his sureties; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner for the said offences, thereby, the present revision has no merits. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. It is not in dispute that accused obtained loan from SC and ST Corporation to purchase a car (Taxi) under SC Employment scheme and committed default in repaying the same. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Ex.P.2 loan application of the accused along with surety bonds and undertaking certificates dated 10.05.2005, categorically proved the said fact. 12. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused obtained the loan by submitting forged surety certificates and played fraud against the corporation. To prove the said fact, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of P.W.5, whose signature said to be forged by the accused as surety to get the loan from the corporation, and P.W.7 Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, who examined the questioned documents with the standard signatures and specimen signatures of P.W.5 and gave Ex.P.3 opinion. To prove the said fact, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of P.W.5, whose signature said to be forged by the accused as surety to get the loan from the corporation, and P.W.7 Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, who examined the questioned documents with the standard signatures and specimen signatures of P.W.5 and gave Ex.P.3 opinion. 13. On perusal of testimony of P.W.5, she testified that she is working as Government Teacher and that accused is her cousin and working as contract lecturer. Prior to 2012, she received notice from SC Corporation, Machilipatnam in that accused availed a loan from SC Corporation and she stood as surety on behalf of the accused for purchasing a car for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- sanctioned by the corporation. Further, she categorically testified that she never stood as surety on behalf of the accused at the time of availing the loan and the signature on Ex.P.2 surety bond does not belong to her. During cross examination she admitted that there are no prior disputes between her family and the accused. Except that nothing incriminating was elicited to disbelieve her testimony. 14. In view of the above, it is categorical that P.W.5 completely denied her signature on surety bonds submitted by the accused to get the loan from the corporation by stating that she never stood as surety for the accused. 15. To prove the said fact, now, it is relevant to refer the testimony of P.W.7 Scientific Expert, who examined the questioned signatures with the standard and specimen signatures of P.W.5 and submitted Ex.P.3 report. He categorically testified that on 04.12.2012, he received two sealed covers containing one loan application with Q.1 to Q.4 signatures, one attendance register with standard signature S.1 to S.22 and S.26 to S.47, one pay bill register with standard signatures S.23 to S.25 and S.48 to S.50 and six specimen sheets with standard signatures S.51 to S.58. He examined the same by using magnifiers stereo microscope and video spectral comparator, gave Ex.P.3 report that the signatures of P.W.5 availed on the standard and specimen signatures are not tallied with questioned signatures under Q.3 and Q.4. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the procedure and examination made by P.W.7 to give Ex.P.3 report. 16. He examined the same by using magnifiers stereo microscope and video spectral comparator, gave Ex.P.3 report that the signatures of P.W.5 availed on the standard and specimen signatures are not tallied with questioned signatures under Q.3 and Q.4. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the procedure and examination made by P.W.7 to give Ex.P.3 report. 16. In view of the testimony of P.W.5 coupled with testimony of P.W.7 and Ex.P.3 report, it is categorical that the accused submitted with loan application with surety bonds to the corporation with forged signatures of P.W.5, thereby, committed fraud against the corporation, availed loan, and default in repayment of the same. 17. The testimony of D.W.1 is of no use to the case of the accused, since it is not the testimony of D.W.1 that he identified P.W.5 with her identity proof at the time of scrutiny of loan application or he has got acquaintance with P.W.5 and her signature, even prior to the obtaining her signature on the surety bond. Furthermore, the details in the surety bonds were not filed completely, there is difference in between the signature of surety and full of the name and there is difference of ink. Thereby, basing on the inconsistent testimony of D.W.1, it cannot be said that P.W.5 stood as surety for the loan obtained by the accused. 18. Having regard to the above discussion, the prosecution categorically proved the offences committed by the accused beyond all doubt. As such, the Courts below rightly convicted the accused for the offences under Section 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. 19. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand , [ (2004) 7 SCC 659 ] , that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court.” 20. By taking into consideration of testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material placed on record, the trial Court rightly came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offences, which was affirmed by the first Appellate Court after thorough appreciation of the matter. 21. By taking into consideration of testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material placed on record, the trial Court rightly came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offences, which was affirmed by the first Appellate Court after thorough appreciation of the matter. 21. In view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Courts below, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of P.Ws.1 to 8 and there is no material to disbelieve the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.4. 22. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that the accused committed fraud by submitting forged documents to get the loan from the corporation and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Courts below in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offences. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the said offences. 23. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the incident was occurred in the year 2005 and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the Courts below. He brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi) , [ AIR 1977 SC 892 ] , wherein the APEX Court considered the facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one (1) month rigorous imprisonment. 24. He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, AIR 1973 SC 2127 wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 25. 24. He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, AIR 1973 SC 2127 wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 25. As well in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana , [42019 (3) Crimes 89] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.” 26. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to be happened in the year 2005 and by this time nineteen (19) years have already been lapsed. 27. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three (3) months from one year for the offences under Section 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. 28. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused to that of three (3) months rigorous imprisonment instead of one year for the offences under Section 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. The rest of the judgment dated 24.11.2016 in C.C.No.251 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Machilipatnam, which was affirmed by the judgment dated 25.07.2018 in Crl.A.No.326 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, shall stands confirmed. The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the petitioner/accused, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Machilipatnam to serve the remaining sentence, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner/accused. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.