Partly allowed

Premi Gopi v. the State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2020CRLRC/700/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court convicted the accused under Section 420 IPC for cheating. It upheld the conviction but reduced imprisonment to time already served, enhanced the fine to Rs. 2,500, and added one month default term.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to time served; fine enhanced to Rs. 2,500 with additional one month simple imprisonment for default.

Premi Gopi Vs the State of A.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 700 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard and perused the record.

¶5

The present Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2005, dated 28.4.2008, on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No.402 of 2001, dated 5.7.2005 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, wherein the petitioner-accused was convicted under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶6

The facts in issue are as under :

¶7

On 17.5.2001, while P.W.1 – A.V.S.O., Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, was in his office near Vaikuntam Queue Complex, one Sri Eaga Venkateswarlu, a resident of Warangal, approached him and informed him that he was cheated by an unknown person and he had taken away cash of Rs.1,500/- from him promising to provide “Darshan” and Prasadams” and though he waited till 8 AM, the said unknown person did not turn up. Thereupon, P.W.1 left his office along with the staff and Sri E.Venkateswarlu and searched for the unknown person and with the assistance of Sri E.Venkateswarlu, P.W.1 traced the said unknown person, who is the accused. On interrogation, the accused admitted the offence

¶8

¶9

and handed over cash of Rs.1,500/- to P.W.1, which was collected by him from Sri E.Venkateswarlu. P.W.3 – Head Constable seized M.O.1 cash; arrested the accused and registered a case in crime No.75 of 2001 under Section 420 I.P.C. Police investigated into the matter and filed a charge-sheet, which was taken on file as C.C. No.402 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. On appearance of the accused, all the relevant copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished and he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty.

¶10

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced for defence. Considering the evidence available on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Appeal filed against the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revision came to be filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not believable as they are self-contradictory and ingredients constituting offence under Section 420 I.P.C. are not made out.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2 are independent witnesses and they have no enmity against the accused and their evidence and Exs.P2, P3 and

¶13

¶14

M.O.1 prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, seeks to dismissal of the revision.

¶15

P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically deposed in their evidence that on 17.5.2001 when P.W.1 was in his office near “Vaikuntam Queue Complex”, Sri E.Venkateswarlu approached him and informed him that an unknown person had taken away cash of Rs.1,500/promising him to provide “Darshan” and “Prasadams” and on search, with the help of Sri E.Venkateswarlu, P.W.1 found the accused who disclosed his identity and confessed the offence. Pursuant thereto, cash of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.6,993/- and Exs.P2 and P3 were recovered from the possession of the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated by Ex.P2 and P3 (recommendation letters) and M.O.1 (cash of Rs.8,493/-).

¶16

Coming to the allegation that ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. are not proved, Section 420 I.P.C. deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P2 and P3 (recommendation letters) and M.O.1 (cash of Rs.8,493/-), it is clear that the accused deceived and cheated Sri E.Venkateswarlu and basing on the false representation of the accused, Sri E.Venkateswarlu parted with cash of Rs.1,500/-. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. are made out by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

¶17

Therefore, finding of the trial with regard to involvement of the accused in the commission of offence, which was confirmed in appeal, cannot be said to be illegal or improper. Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of both the courts below.

¶18

¶19

Having regard to the facts in issue and in view of the representation made that the petitioner is the only source of livelihood to his family and as he was in jail for some period after the judgment in appeal, while confirming the conviction, the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/to Rs.2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, the petitioner – accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶20

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶21

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶23

Date: 12.02.2020

¶24

skmr

Premi Gopi v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premi Gopi v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boya Eswar, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Vallam Muni Prabhakar and Another Vs the State of A.P.

Appala Sree Ramulu , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

K.Venkata Rami Reddy, Prakasam Dt., Vs Kandi Lakshmi Devi, Krishna and 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Immidisetty Ramaiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Bhagyamma Vs the State of A.P. and Another