Revision against conviction and sentence for cheating. Court upheld conviction but reduced imprisonment term to time already served, enhancing the fine and directing payment of a supplemental fine as compensation to the complainant.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs.75,000 payable to the complainant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Crl.R.C.No.1118 of 2006
JUDGMENT
This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 29.06.2006, passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry in Crl.A.No.104 of 2004 confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram vide judgment dated 23.06.2006 in C.C.No.1485 of 2000.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
The petitioner/accused even though sold away his landed property to the third party, he misrepresented P.W.1-de facto complainant, made him to believe his words, entered into an agreement after twenty days and sold away the same property for a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs by receiving a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards advance. On a complaint given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.91 of 1999 under Section 420 IPC was registered against the accused. On completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet.
3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of defence.
4. The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC and thereby convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Questioning the said conviction and the sentence, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.104 of 2004 and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present revision.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.
7. From the record, it appears that the petitioner was in jail for a substantial period. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Courts below. But however, taking into consideration the money transaction in connection with the land between the parties and in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the Courts below is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of
fine imposed by the Courts below. The petitioner/accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) apart from the fine already paid by him before the trial Court on or before 02.10.2013, in default he shall undergo three months simple imprisonment. The trial Court is directed to pay the said fine amount to P.W.1-de facto complainant as compensation.
8. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
1st July, 2013 sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision against conviction and sentence deserves interference?
Whether the sentence of imprisonment should be enhanced, reduced or set aside given the time already undergone?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
P.W.1-de facto complainant
RAJA ELANGO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
