Allowed

Balija Rayachotaiah at Raju, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2023CRLRC/997/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision as the lower courts erred in convicting the petitioner for cheating by impersonation without proving delivery of property or intimation to the account holder, leading to acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, and the revision petitioner acquitted of the charges.

Balija Rayachotaiah at Raju, Vs the State of… — 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.997 of 2009

¶6

Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.90 of 2008 dated 17.6.2009 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in CC.No.787 of 2007 dated 30.06.2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Balija Rayachotaiah @ Raju, S/o. Virupakshaiah, aged about 24 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Near Water Tank, Kallur, Kurnool^District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

(Accused No.l/Appellant)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., through Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Kurnool, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi.

¶13

...Respondent (Complainant/Respondent)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri J Janakirami Reddy

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

¶16

The Court made the following Order:

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.997 of 2009

¶19

bRDER:

¶20

This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 17.06.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.90 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.l for the offences punishable under Sections 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.

¶21

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,^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 is^not tallying with the specimen signature of B.Ram Mohan

¶22

¶23

available with them. Therefore, Captain Nirvan Dev (LW2) placed the matter before T.Uma Maheswara Rao PWl. On the direction of T.Uma Maheswara Rao and Captain Nirvan^Dev (LW2), Shaik Khaja Sab PW3 caught hold of accused No.l. On seeing the same, accused No.2 ran away from the^sceneof offences. PWl and other Bank Officials have taken accused No.l to Kurnool 11 Town Police Station. PWl submitted a written complaint, basing on which, the Inspector of Police, Kurnool II Town Police Station (LW6) registered a case in Crime No. 166 of 2004 under Sections 420 read with 511 and 416IPC.

¶24

The prosecution examined PW. 1 to PW.4 and marked Ex.Pl to Ex.P5. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

¶25

The trial Court convicted the petitioner herein and another for the offences under Sections 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

¶26

4- »

¶27

¶28

default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month.

¶29

Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment, the petitioner herein/accused No.l preferred an appeal^beforethe lower appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the trial Court judgment.

¶30

Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner herein/Al.

¶31

Heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for^the revision petitioner and Smt. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondentState.

¶32

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 offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 511 IPC. He further submits that no eyewitness is placed on record to show that accused

¶33

¶34

committed the offences under Sections 420 read with 511 IPC.

¶35

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is a concurrent finding regarding^thefact and that there are no grounds to interfere with judgments rendered by both the Courts below.

¶36

The point that arises for consideration in this revision^is:

¶37

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

¶38

This Court verified the record including testimonies, it has to be seen whether the A1 in connivance with A2 tried to withdraw the amount. If so, whether it attracts an^offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 511 IPC.

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

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 form is not tallying with the specimen signature of the account holder. 13. As seen from the testimony of PW-1, the Cashier verified the signature on the withdrawal form with that of the 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 pretending himself as B.Ram Mohan, account holder of their Bank.

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

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.l does not contain the photo of the account holder, therefore, they verified the specimen signature of^theaccount holder available with them, in the cross-examination,^PW-2 has stated that in the year 2004, there was no practice^of affixing the photo of the account holder on the passbookⁱⁿ 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.

¶46

¶47

In order to attract offences punishable under Sections 420 and 411 read with 511 I PC it is essential that there must be cheating by impersonation as well as deliver the property. 18. In the present case, even according to PW-1 and PW-2 no amount was delivered to accused No.l. So, there is substantial flaw in concluding by trial Court as well as Sessions Court, when there is no delivery of any amount by the Bank to accused No. 1 the trial Court as well as Sessions Court found the accused guilt for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 511 I PC. 19. PW-1 stated that one B.Ram Mohan is having S.B.AC.No.37090 but he cannot say how long he has been having 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,^hestated that the passbook produced by A-1 did not contain the photo of any person. It was also elicited from PW-1 that^hecould not identify all the customers of the bank and it was^also elicited that no complaint was given by B.Ram Moham^whois said to be account holder that he lost his passbook.

¶48

¶49

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there IS no evidence with regard to offences of cheating by A1^and A2 and they are having intention or preparation to commit an offences 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 ISi: very clear that no statement or complaint from the customer who said to have holding the account nor even intimated to the account holder that there was an incident said to be committed by accused.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool as confirmed in judgment dated 17.06.2009 in Crl.A.No.90 of 2008 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool^and thereby the revision petitioner/accused No.l is acquitted of the charge under sections 420 read with 511 l.P.C. The fine amount paid by the petitioner/Al, if any, shall be^refundedto him.

¶54

¶55

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶56

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

SDI- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, Kurnool District 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Kadapa, Kadapa^District. 4. The Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Kurnool, Kurnool District 5. One CC to Sri J Janakirami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi 8. Three CD Copies

¶62

TK sree

¶63

HIGH COURT

¶64

: 13/12/2023
4
i '/
n
#, -■ .X

¶65

ORDER

¶66

CRLRC.No.997 of 2009

¶67

-
f e, ■■■
.> ■f
/
V
.<br>-.''i
<% I'-
-h•Ty
-0
y

¶68

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

Balija Rayachotaiah at Raju, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balija Rayachotaiah at Raju, v. the 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.