Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 313 (AP)

Meesala Tata Rao, W. G. Dist v. P. P. Hyd

2025-02-20

V.SRINIVAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : (V. SRINIVAS, J.) Assailing the judgment dated 29.12.2015 in Crl.A.No.300 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the judgment dated 18.07.2011 in C.C.No.1529 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class at Kakinada, for the offences under Section 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 05.01.2016 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide order in Crl.R.C.MP.No.81 of 2016. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). On one day in the month of March 2007, the accused deceived P.Ws.1 and 2, made them to believe that if they arranged Rs.3,00,000/- each for visa and passport expenses, he would provide suitable jobs to them at Kuwait. Then P.Ws.1, 2 and one Patnala Veerraju gave cash of Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused at the house of P.W.5 in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 on the promise that he (accused) would obtained Visa and Passport on or before 25 th April and sent them to Kuwait by providing suitable jobs. But, the accused cheated them with a false promise and failed to return their money. iv). Basing on the report of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.7-S.I. of Police, II Town (Law & Order) Police Station at Kakinada, registered a case in Cr.No.175 of 2007 under Section420 of IPC and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, P.W.8-Inspector of Police laid charge sheet against the accused and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.1529 of 2008 on the file of Court of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 420 of IPC , vide judgment dated 18.07.2011, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of four (4) months. 5. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.300 of 2011, before the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 29.12.2015, 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 A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel representing Sri P. Durgaprasad, 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 A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel representing Sri P.Durgaprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 8 is inconsistent and not corroborating with each other; that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is interested in nature; 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 offence 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 and 2 coupled with Ex.P.2 receipt categorically proved the offence committed by the accused; that on perusal of Ex.P.2 receipt, the same was issued by the accused by affixing his thumb impression, which is not in dispute; that as per the testimony of P.W.6, he is the scribe of Ex.P.2; that in the presence of P.Ws.3 to 5, accused received the amount from P.Ws.1 and 2 with a false promise to provide jobs to them at Kuwait; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the material on record and convicted the petitioner for the said offence, thereby, the present revision has no merits. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically shows that themselves and Patnala Veerraju lend an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from P.Ws.3 and 4 by executing promissory note and then they went to the house of P.W.5. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically shows that themselves and Patnala Veerraju lend an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from P.Ws.3 and 4 by executing promissory note and then they went to the house of P.W.5. On believing the deceitful words of accused to provide jobs to them at Kuwait, they handed over the said amount to the accused in the presence of P.Ws.3 to 5, P.Ws.1 and 2 handed over the said amount to the accused on receipt of Ex.P.2 dated 27.03.2007, which was scribed by P.W.6. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 fully corroborated and supported by the testimony of P.Ws.3 to 6. Nothing was elicited during cross their examination to disbelieve the prosecution version. 12. Furthermore, on perusal of Ex.P.2 receipt issued by the accused, it contains the signature as well thumb impression of accused, which is not disputed by the accused by taking any steps to send the disputed document to the expert to prove that the Ex.P.2 does not belong to him, thereby, the Courts below rightly relied upon Ex.P.2 receipt issued by the accused. 13. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 8 coupled with Exs.P.1 and P.2 categorically shows that it is not mere breach of contract and it reflects the fraudulent intention of the accused at the beginning of the transaction, thereby, proved the offence committed by the accused beyond all doubt. As such, the Courts below rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 420 of IPC . 14. 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”. 15. By taking into consideration of testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material placed on record, the trial Court came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence, which was affirmed by the first Appellate Court after thorough appreciation of the matter. 16. 15. By taking into consideration of testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material placed on record, the trial Court came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence, which was affirmed by the first Appellate Court after thorough appreciation of the matter. 16. 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.5. 17. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that the accused induced P.Ws.1, 2 and another to provide jobs to them at Kuwait, received Rs.8,00,000/- from them and then deceived them with fraudulent intention 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 offence. 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 offence. 18. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the accident was occurred in the year, 2007, he is aged about 62 years, having wife and two children, who are depending upon him, 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. 19. 19. Even in Nagaraj v. Union of India , [32019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 209] , the APEX Court at paragraph Nos.18 and 19 held that “the appellant/accused has already undergone one month jail sentence; second, the offence in question neither against the society nor it involves any moral turpitude and nor it has resulted in causing any harm or injury to any human being except causing some damage to the railway property, viz., one railway crossing gate; and lastly, the offence is now 13 years old. In view of the aforementioned three reasons and in the interest of justice, therefore of the considered opinion that the six months jail sentence awarded to the appellate by the three Courts below deserves to be altered to what he has already undergone by the appellant till date.” 20. 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.” 21. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to be happened in the year, 2007 and by this time seventeen (17) years have already been lapsed. 22. 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 that of six (6) months from three (3)years for the offence under Section 420 IPC . 23. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court to that of six (6) months instead of three (3) years for the offence under Section 420 of IPC . The rest of the judgment, dated 18.07.2011 in C.C.No.1529 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada, which was affirmed by the judgment dated 29.12.2015 in Crl.A.No.300 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada, shall stand confirmed. The rest of the judgment, dated 18.07.2011 in C.C.No.1529 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada, which was affirmed by the judgment dated 29.12.2015 in Crl.A.No.300 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada, shall stand confirmed. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada to serve the sentence imposed against him, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner/accused.Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.