Allowed

V.Jagan Mohan Reddy, v. State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2023CRLRC/988/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision under CrPC. Court held that no cheating was established as no property was delivered to the accused. Conviction by impugned judgment for cheating by impersonation (Section 420 IPC) was set aside and petitioner acquitted due to lack of evidence. Fine refunded if paid.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; revision petitioner/accused acquitted of Section 420 read with 511 IPC; fine refunded if paid.

V.Jagan Mohan Reddy, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.988 of 2009

¶6

Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in CrI.A.No. 89/2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, dated 17.6.2009 in sentencing the petitioner to undergo for a period of one year R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Sec.420 R/w.511 IPC, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed in CC.No. 787/2004 on the file of JFCM, Kurnool, dated 30.6.2008.

¶7

Between:

¶8

yjagan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Janardhan Reddy, age 30 years, R/o. H No 51/15-E-IL, Baba Brundavan Nagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

State Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.

¶12

...Respondent/Complainant

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

¶15

The Court made the following Order:

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶17

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.988 of 2009

¶18

ORDER;

¶19

This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 17.06.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.89 of 2008 on the file^ofthe learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner herein/accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 511 IPC in the judgment dated 30.06.2008 in C.C.No.787 of 2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:^On 25.06.2004 at about 05:00 p.m., accused No.l went to Andhra Bank, N.R.Peta Branch, Kurnool and submitted a withdrawal form for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- pretending himself as B. Ram Mohan, holder of S.B. A/C.No.37090^and at that time, accused No.2 was waiting outside the^Bank premises. The concerned Bank officials found that the signature of B. Ram Mohan on the withdrawal form does not tally with the specimen signature of B. Ram Mohan available with them. Therefore, Captain Nirvan Dev (LW2) placed^the

¶20

¶21

¶22

matter before T.Uma Maheswara Rao PW-1. On the directions of T.Uma Malieswara Rao and Captain Nirvan Dev (LW2) Shaik Khaja Sab PW-3 caught hold accused No . 1. On seeing the same, accused No.2 ran away from the scene of offence. PW-1 and other Bank Officials have taken accused No.l to Kurnool 11 Town Police Station and PW-1 submitted a written complaint, basing on which, the Inspector of Police, Kurnool 11 Town Police Station (LW6) registered a case in Crime No. 166 of 2004 under Section 420 read with 511 and 416 IPC, accused No.2 was arrested on 29.06.2004.

¶23

The prosecution examined PW.l to PW.4 and marked Ex.Pl to Ex.PS. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

¶24

The trial Court convicted the petitioner herein and another for the offence under Section 420 read with 511 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) Month.

¶25

¶26

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the petitioner herein/accused No.2 preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the trial Court judgment.

¶27

Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed^by the petitioner herein/A.2.

¶28

Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the^accused beyond all reasonable doubt and no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution to make believe that accused committed the offence punishable under Section⁴²⁰ read with 511 IPC. He further submits that no eyewitness^is placed on record to show that the accused committed the offence under Section 420 read with 511 IPC.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is a concurrent finding

¶31

¶32

regarding the fact and that there axe no grounds to^interfere with judgments rendered by both Courts below.

¶33

The point that arises for consideration in this revision is:

¶34

“Whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial Court as conifrmed by the Sessions Court i.e. Principal Sessions Judge, Kumool?”

¶35

This Court verified the record including testimonies, it has to be seen whether A. 1 is with the connivance of A2 tried to withdraw the amount. If so, whether it attracts an offence punishable under Section 420 read with 511 IPC.

¶36

As seen from the testimony of PW-2, on 25.06.2004 at about 5.00 p.m., accused No.l came to their Bank and produced a passbook and withdrawal form to withdraw an amount of Rs. 12,000/-. He further stated that he verified the passbook which does not contain the photo of the account holder and on suspicion, he verified the signature on the withdrawal form with the specimen signature of the^account holder available in the computer and same was not tallied with each other and then he placed the matter before the Assistant Bank Manager as the signature on the withdrawal

¶37

¶38

form is not tallying with the specimen signature of the account holder.

¶39

As seen from the testimony of PW-1, the Cashier verified the signature on the withdrawal form with^thatofthe specimen signature available in the Bank in respect^ofthe account holder by name B. Ram Mohan and through these witnesses Ex. P2 withdrawal form and Ex. P3 passbook^were marked. According to the case of prosecution, on 25.06.2004, accused No.l submitted the withdrawal form and the passbook presenting himself as B. Ram Mohan, account holder of their Bank.

¶40

According to the case of defense, if at all, an offence committed and is established that accused No.l might^have committed an offence, it is an imprecision that accused^No.2 committed an offence punishable under Section 416 read with 511 IPC.

¶41

The prosecution has to establish that there must be a deceiving of a person either making false or misleading representation and there must be a fraudulent or dishonest

¶42

¶43

inducement of third person to either deliver any property or consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally inducing that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything. 16. In the present case, it is elicited from the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 that one B. Ram Mohan is the holder of S.B.Account No.37090 and he was having credit balance. Admittedly, the passbook said to be presented by accused No. 1 does not contain the photo of the account holder. therefore, they verified the specimen signature of the account holder available with them, in the crossexamination, PW-2 has stated that in the year 2004, there was no practice of affixing the photo of the account holder on the passbook i n respect of old accounts. It is also found from the record that PW-1 and PW-2 directed the PW-3 to caught hold of the accused.

¶44

In order to attract offences punishable under Sections 420 and 411 read with 511 IPC it is essential that there must be cheating by impersonation as well as delivery of the property.

¶45

\ -

¶46

¶47

In the present case, even according to PW-1 and PW-2 no amount was delivered to the accused. So, there is substantial flaw in concluding by trial Court as well^Sessions Court, when there is no delivery of any amount by the^Bank to accused, the trial Court as well Sessions Court^foundthe accused guilt for the offence punishable under Sections⁴²⁰ read with 511 I PC.

¶48

It is a specific defense taken by the accused that^he neither went to the bank nor attempted to withdraw any amount. The evidence of PW-3 stated that PW-1 asked^himto caught hold of accused No.2 who was outside the bank^inan auto. Accordingly, he went outside the bank and found^that accused No.2 was going away. Except the oral testimony^of PW-2 that previously accused No.2 of working as Security Guard of ATM Counter, nothing was there against him. It is the specific case of accused that they never came to^thebank and never attempted to withdraw any cash from the bank.

¶49

PW-1 stated that one B. Ram Mohan is having S.B.AC.No.37090 but he cannot say how long he has been

¶50

¶51

having an account with their bank without seeing the^record. It was also elicited that normally they used to issue passbooks only after affixing the photo on the passbook.^But he stated that the passbook produced by A-1 did not contain the photo of any person. It was also elicited from PW-1 that he could not identify all the customers of the bank and it was also elicited that no complaint was made by B. Ram Mohan who is said to be account holder that he lost his passbook.

¶52

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no evidence with regard to offence of cheating by^A.1and A. 2 and they are having intention or preparation to commit

¶53

an offence basing on without material evidence before the trial Court and with surmises and conjunctions found the guilt of the accused for the said offences. This Court finds that no amount of cheating elicited from the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 by considering the totality of the circumstances. It is very clear that no statement or complaint from the customer who is said to have holding the account nor even intimated to the account holder that there was an incident said to be committed by accused.

¶54

¶55

For these reasons, this Court is of the view, the trial Court as well as appellate Court erred in finding the guilt of the accused. Thereby, the judgment passed by the trial^Court as well as Sessions Court is liable to be set aside.

¶56

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded in the judgment dated 30.06.2008 in C.C.No.787 of 2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool as confirmed in judgment dated 17.06.2009 in Crl.A.No.89^of 2008 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool^and thereby the revision petitioner/accused No.2 is acquitted^of the charge under Section 420 read with 511 IPC. The fine amount paid by the petitioner/A2, if any, shall be^refundedto him.

¶57

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶58

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

SDI- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

/VtSECTION OFFICER

The Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District, (by RPAD) 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, Kurnool District, (by RPAD) 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, Kadapa^District,(by RPAD) 4. One CC to Sri K Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.^at Amaravathi [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court^{ofA.P.atAmaravathi.} 7. Three CD Copies

TK sree

HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/12/2023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.988 of 2009

•*■2 t REVISION CASE lO If. rt

¶70

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

V.Jagan Mohan Reddy, v. State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Jagan Mohan Reddy, v. State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

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

State of A.P. Vs G. Damodar Naidu

S. Shafiullah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Sindrupu Apparao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Pedda Narsimhulu, Proddatur, Y.S.R.District Vs Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Traders, Guntur and Anr, Rep.by Pp., Hyd

Mohammad Hussain Mohiddin Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P

Mannepalli Israel, Vs State of A.P.