Remanded

Karumuru Sambi Reddy, v. The State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC2 Feb 2012CRLRC/1479/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, Justice Ravishankar reviewed convictions for cheating and forgery/arson. The court upheld the conviction for cheating by personation (S. 419 IPC). It altered the conviction for cheating for delivery of property (S. 420 IPC) to forgery of valuable security (S. 465 IPC) due to lack of direct delivery. Convictions for forgery for cheating (S. 468 IPC) and possession of forg

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 420 IPC altered to Section 465 IPC; convictions under Sections 419, 468, and 474 IPC confirmed; sentence maintained; appeal dismissed with modification.

Karumuru Sambi Reddy, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVISHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1479 of 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner in this revision, hereinafterwards referred to as ‘accused’, was tried on charges under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for cheating) and 474 (for possession of forged valuable security) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), in C.C.No.45 of 1999 on the file of the court of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali (trial court).

¶5

2. The trial court after considering the matter by its judgment dated 24.07.2001 convicted the accused of all the four charges. Regarding sentences, it awarded rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- on each of charges 1 to 3 and a sentence of two years RI and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for charge No.4, with default clause prison sentence of three months simple imprisonment (SI) on all the four counts for non-payment of fine. Against the above judgment of the trial court, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.377 of 2001. That appeal was dismissed by the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur (appellate court), by its judgment dated 26.08.2004, confirming the convictions for all the aforesaid four charges but it reduced the substantive sentences of imprisonment on each count to six months RI while maintaining the fines awarded by the trial court. Questioning that appellate judgment the petitioner has preferred this revision. The prosecution did not file any revision or pursue any other remedy for enhancement of sentences. As the matter is of 1999 and more than 11 years have elapsed as on today, that aspect is not gone into.

¶6

3. Admittedly, P.W.1 Atluri Aruna Devi (de facto complainant), P.W.2 Jasti Mahalakshmi and their elder sister Sarojini inherited Ac.1-00 of land in D.No.744/1, 744/2 and 744/3 in Chinnagadalavarru village in Tenali taluq of Guntur District. It appears that there is a dispute regarding the shares of P.Ws.1 and 2 and their sister but it is not necessary to go into the same. The accused admittedly, even according to his version as D.W.1, was cultivating the said land even prior to 1995 and it is also not necessary to pronounce about the status in which the accused was cultivating the said land i.e. whether he was cultivating it as a tenant or on behalf of P.Ws.1 and 2 and their sister.

¶7

4. The prosecution case is that, in order to knock away the land of P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused forged the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed dated 11.12.1995 and got it registered on 12.12.1995 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Tenali, showing that as if P.Ws.1 and 2 sold Acs.0-67½ cents of the above land of Ac.1-00 to him for a consideration of Rs.34,500/-. It is then alleged that subsequently he sold the said extent through the original of Ex.P.3 sale deed dated 13.04.1998 in favour of one Konathala Kotaiah of Chinnagadalavarru village for a consideration of Rs.50,700/-. This Kotaiah who is cited as Listed Witness No.8 in the charge sheet died and was not examined, but P.W.4 K.Srinivasa Rao who is the son of the said Kotaiah was examined to speak about the original of Ex.P.3 sale deed and also Ex.P.3 and he also supported the prosecution case.

¶8

5. It must be mentioned here itself that P.W.9 Khasim Ali, a document writer, stated that he scribed the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed on the instructions of the accused and P.W.5 I.Nageswara

¶9

Rao, a resident of Chinnagadalavarru village, also stated that he acted as witness in the original of Ex.P.2 and P.W.8 Krishna Murthy, a stamp vendor of Tenali, also stated that he sold stamps for Ex.P.2 and his registers show that accused purchased the same for his own purpose and even the stamps on it would show that they were purchased for his own purpose.

¶10

6. P.W.11 A.Venkat Reddy, another document writer supported the prosecution case that he scribed the original of Ex.P.3 on the instructions of the accused and P.W.7 K.Kishore stated he acted as witness in the original of Ex.P.3 on the instructions of accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 of-course consistently supported their stand that they never sold their land under Ex.P.2 to the accused and since they were residing in Hyderabad the accused took advantage their absence in the village and committed the above forgery by using the thumb impressions of some body else who were also women who impersonated them. P.W.13 G.Balram, Finger Print Expert of the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, gave evidence to the effect that he compared the admitted specimen thumb impressions of P.Ws.1 and 2 with the thumb impressions of executants found in Ex.P.5 register of the Sub-Registrar, Tenali, i.e. Book-I maintained in the said office wherein the original of Ex.P.2 was registered and gave evidence to the effect that the thumb impressions found in Ex.P.5 were not those of P.Ws.1 and 2 indicating that the original of Ex.P.2 is a forgery.

¶11

7. The trial court and the appellate court considered the evidence and concluded that the same would prove beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution case that the accused forged the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed and later on taking advantage of that forged sale deed he sold Ex.P.2 land to the father of P.W.4 in a

¶12

fraudulent manner.

¶13

8. Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the accused, raised two contentions in support of his argument that the convictions regarding forgery and cheating cannot be sustained. The first is that the accused himself filed A.T.C.No.1/1996 (ATC) under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, to declare him as a statutory tenant of the Ac.1-00 land in question against P.Ws.1 and 2 and their sister Sarojini when they tried to illegally evict him though he was a tenant and that nothing is mentioned in the counter filed by Sarojini in it about the original of the present Ex.P.2 sale deed. He also argued that if really he had obtained the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed there was no need for the accused to file the above ATC as he would have himself became the owner by the date of the sale deed and further P.Ws.1 and 2 did not file any counter in the said ATC and therefore his defence that P.Ws.1 and 2 foisted this case along with their sister against him in order only to evict him from the land and that he is innocent should be accepted. It is difficult to accept this contention for the following reasons.

¶14

9. It should be noted that if the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed was not a false document there was no need at all for the accused to file ATC as it was after the date of Ex.P.2 and as he would have become the owner of the land in question by the date of the ATC. It is of-course true that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not file counter in it. It is the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they came to know about Ex.P.2 sale deed only in 1998 and this is accepted by both the courts below and even Ex.P.1 complaint which was filed by P.W.1 before the trial court and which was referred to the concerned police by it for investigation would reveal this aspect. Thus it is quite clear

¶15

that the accused has filed the ATC only to bolster up his case as disputes already started between him and P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding payment of makta. Thus the above contention based upon the filing of ATC cannot help the accused.

¶16

10. The second contention of Sri Narasimha Reddy is that the prosecution could not secure the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed or Ex.P.3 sale deed and unless it shows that the original of Ex.P.2 is a forged document by referring it to an expert he cannot be held guilty of the charge of forgery. There is no force in this contention also having regard to the circumstances of this case and the evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the said charge.

¶17

11. It should be noted that P.W.4 Srinivasa Rao who is admittedly the son of vendee Kotaiah under Ex.P.3 sale deed stated that the accused has executed the original of Ex.P.3 by showing the photostat copy of the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed. P.W.9 Khasim Ali the document writer categorically stated that he scribed the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed on the instructions of the accused and P.W.5 Nageswara Rao also asserted that he acted as a witness for the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed only at the request of the accused believing him and subsequently he came to know that it is a forged document. Nothing is elicited from P.Ws.9 and 5 to show that they do not know the accused and it should also be noted that P.Ws.5 and 9 belongs to the nearby villages or the same villages.

¶18

12. Additionally the evidence of P.W.13 the finger prints expert about the thumb impression found in Ex.P.5 i.e. Book-I of the concerned Sub-Registrar’s office clinchingly supports the prosecution plea that the thumb impressions of the executants of Ex.P.2 found in Ex.P.5 register purporting to be

¶19

those of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not their thumb impressions. Even P.W.6 Sub-Registrar’s evidence shows that two women affixed their thumb impressions with the names of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are women and therefore it follows that P.Ws.1 and 2 were impersonated by women and this could be only at the instance of the accused. So far as the recovery of the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed is concerned, it must be with the accused himself and it is clear that he has made it unavailable in order to save his own skin. It should also be noted that the accused is not expected to sign in the original of Ex.P.2 as he is shown as the purchaser. Added to this it is also clear that though P.Ws.1 and 2 can subscribe their signatures and are not illiterates, Ex.P.5 register shows that the executants of the original of Ex.P.2 have affixed their thumb impressions instead of signing it.

¶20

13. The above evidence in my opinion as held by both the courts below is sufficient to hold that it was the accused who forged the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed. In my opinion it is not always necessary to seize the original of a document to prove forgery by the accused but where the circumstances and the other evidence let in by the prosecution especially in a case like this shows that forgery has been committed by the accused, then the charge of forgery can be upheld. It is now clear that by showing the photostat copy of Ex.P.2 sale deed as spoken to by P.W.4, the accused sold the said land under the original of Ex.P.3 sale deed to the father of P.W.4. Both the courts below discussed all the other circumstances also in the case and concluded against the accused and there is no ground to interfere with their conclusions on the above aspects.

¶21

14. The charges framed and the convictions recorded by the trial

¶22

court and confirmed by the appellate court have already been mentioned. So far as the charge under Section 419 IPC is concerned, it deals with cheating by personation. This charge reads that it was framed for cheating the Sub-Registrar concerned by the accused for getting the original of Ex.P.2 registered by producing two fictitious women to impersonate P.Ws.1 and 2 before him. The evidence on record proves this charge though there is no direct complaint by the SubRegistrar. Thus conviction of the accused for this charge is confirmed.

¶23

15. Then coming to the charge under Section 420 IPC i.e. cheating for delivery of property it has been framed on the allegation that the accused cheated P.Ws.1 and 2 by creating the original of Ex.P.2. In case of cheating there should be a direct contact between the accused and the victim of cheating for delivery of property but that is absent here. The allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence would only show that the accused created a false document i.e. the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed showing as if it was executed by P.Ws.1 and 2 and therefore it constitutes an offence of forging a sale deed i.e. a ‘valuable security’ and the offence would fall under Section 467 IPC which is a serious offence punishable even with life imprisonment and in the alternative with imprisonment extending upto 10 years and also fine. No charge has been framed for this offence, but the charge sheet allegations which were explained to the accused in the evidence would show that he can be held guilty of the offence of forgery punishable under Section 465 IPC. Thus the accused can be said to have understood this accusation and accordingly his conviction is altered into for the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC which is less graver than the offence under Section 420

¶24

IPC and which is punishable with imprisonment upto 2 years and also fine.

¶25

16. Then coming to the charge under Section 468 IPC which deals with forgery for purpose of cheating, the evidence shows that on the basis of the original of Ex.P.2 sale deed which is a forged one, the accused executed the original of Ex.P.3 in favour of the father of P.W.4 and thus cheated him. Similarly coming to the charge under Section 474 IPC, the evidence shows that the accused retained possession of Ex.P.2 sale deed which is a valuable security for the purpose of cheating the Sub-Registrar and as well as the father of P.W.4 by executing the original of Ex.P.3 sale deed in his favour and cheated both of them. In fact the allegations in the charge sheet would also read that by creating the original of Ex.P.2 the accused cheated the above two persons. It therefore follows that the convictions of the accused under Sections 468 and 474 IPC can also be said to be proper.

¶26

17. Thus it can be said that the judgment of appellate court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Accordingly the convictions of the accused under Sections 419, 468 and 474 IPC are confirmed while his conviction under Section 420 IPC is altered into Section 465 IPC and the sentence of 6 months imprisonment and fine awarded by the appellate court are maintained treating the sentences for Section 420 IPC as those awarded for Section 465 IPC. This criminal revision case is dismissed with the above modification confirming the judgment of the appellate court in all other respects.

¶27

________________________ N. RAVISHANKAR, J 2^nd February, 2012 Cvrk

Karumuru Sambi Reddy, v. The State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karumuru Sambi Reddy, v. The State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

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 rep. by Inspector of Police Vs Sri a. Subba Rao

Birudugadda Asibabu, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Shaik Nayeem Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thannuru Srinivasarao Vs The State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Bathala Venkata Sivudu, Vs Gunireddy Srinivasulu Reddy

Rasheed Ahmed Junaid Vs Bombay Mercantile Co.Op Bank Ltd.