Dismissed

Goka Rajaiah , Rajaiah and Another, v. State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC17 Nov 2021CRLRC/998/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioners' plea to revive a dismissal based on abatement against one co-accused who died. Upholding the conviction for cheating and forgery existing on November 17, 2021, the Bench dismissed the revision, confirming the lower courts' findings of fact as supported by FSL evidence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed against petitioner/A1; suspension of sentence revoked and directed to undergo remaining sentence.

Goka Rajaiah , Rajaiah and Another, Vs State of a.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

CRIMINAL REV rsroN c ASE NO :9980 F 2008

¶6

Crl.Revision Case tJnder fggfion-- 379 (1) of Cr.p.C. aggrieved by the Judgment dated 03-07-2008 in crr.A.No.226 of zboo on the fire of the court of the l. Additional. Metroporitan^!ggsions- luage, Hyderabad preferred .grin.t tt" Judgment dated 07-06-2006 in c.c. No. 9i of zoos on the fire of the court of the Xll Additionat Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , XyJeiafaA.

¶7

Between:

¶8

GOKA RAJAIAH to RAJAIAH S/o. Narsimutu, Dliv_er in Collectors Office, Namptaty Station- Road, nyJ"irori,""'dd.'s_s_rtt,as,nrl Moha,a, Narayanguda, Hyderabad,

¶9

2 George Suman Shantaona. -S/o. . Vishwas Manohar Shantappa, Revenue lff$fi :1;: ffi fl:iifJ;ii *3:^{oni""nval,.loZa} ii ltz- i;orzoi{ii,,;il5i;,.I

¶10

AND

¶11

"'if

¶12

... Revision petitioners / Appellant /Accused No. 1 & 2

¶13

STATE OF A.P., through pubtic prosecutor, High Court of Buildings, Hyderabad Respondent / Rlspondent I Compiji'njit^{- """"}

¶14

Counsel for the Revision petitioner / Accused No.1: SRl. MOHD OASIM

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: THE pUBLtC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

¶19

THE H('N'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.998 OF^2OO8

¶21

QEDEB:

¶22

This Crin inal Revision Case, under^{Sections397 and 401} of the Code of Criminal^{Procedure, 1973(for short Cr.P.C'')is} filed by the^pe itioners/A1^{and A2 aggrievedby the} iudgment, dated 03.07.2( OB,^{passedin Crl.A.No.226of 2006 bv the} learned I Addi ional^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Hyderabad,} whereby, the^jt dgment,^{dated 07.06.2006,passed in C'C'No'94} of 2003 by^t le learned^{XII AdditionalChief Metropolitan} Magistrate, Hycerabad,^{convictingthe petitioners/Aland A2 of} the offences^{pr nishableunder Sections 420, 468 and 471 of} I.P.C. and sentt^{ncirlgthem to undergo simple imprisonmentfor} two^years and to^{pay fine of Rs.1,000/-each for the offence} under Section^{420 I.P.C., indefault toundergosimple} imprisonment fc'three^{mOnths; to undergo simpleimpristlnment} for two^{years ar d to pay fine of Rs'1,000/- each for the offence} under Section^{468 of I.P.C', in default to undergo simple} imprisonment^{orthree months; and tounderqosimple} imprisonment^{fc r two years and to pay fine of Rs'1'000'/- each} for the offence^{r nder Section 47:. of I'P'C''in default to undergo} simple^{imprison nent for three months'was confirmed'}

¶23

2.Heardthrlearnedcounselforpetitioners/A1arrdA2' learned^{Additi rnal Public Prosecutor appearing forthe} respondent/Stat:^{and perusedthe record'}

¶24

Dr.SA,J Crl.R.C.No.998 of2008

¶25

¶26

This Court, vide^{order, dated 25'02'2020,passed in} I.A.No.1 of 2O2O dismissed^{the revision case as abated against} the^{petitioner/A2.}

¶27

The facts of the case,ⁱⁿ brief,^{are that petitioner/Alis the} car driver in Collector's Office,^{Hyderabad. Petitioner/A2is the} Revenue Inspector, Amberpet^{MandalRevenueOffice,} Hyderabad. During the^year 1998-1999, the^{petitioners/A1and} 42 lured PWs.2 to 6 and others, total 16^persons, stating that they would get house site pattas in their names by managing the Revenue Department Officials and collected an amount of Rs.2,33,800/- from them by showing house sites near Indira Park with a housing colony and issued pattas to them. When the victims went to the said colony, they found some persons were residing therein and on their enquiry in the Collector.s Office, Hyderabad, they came to know that the pattas given to them by the petitioners/A1 and 42 were fake pattas. Thereafter, the victims gave representation to the then District Collector, Hyderabad, who, in turn, gave Ex.p1 report, dated 05.08.199g, to the Commissioner of police. Basing on the same, a case was reg istered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the petitioners/A1 and A2 were arrested and on their confession, some challans and some more pattas were seized, The specimen signatures and hand writing of the petitioners/A1 and 42 were obtained and the same were compared with D-form pattas issued to the victims. The FSL expert opined that the writings and signatures on the pattas issued to the victims are oF the petitioners/Al and A2. Hence,

¶28

Dr.SA.J Crl.R C.No.998 of20013

¶29

¶30

¶31

the subject :harge sheet was filed before the trial Court. The trial Court, laving examined the material on record and the submissions \ade, vide judgment, dated 07,06.2006, found the petitioners/A . and 42 guilty oF the charges under Sections 420, 468 and 47I of I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them of the ;aid ofFences, as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the^{peritioners/Al} and^{A2 preferred Crl.A'No.226 of 2006} before the i^ppellate Court.^{The appellateCourt,having} examinedthematerialonrecordandsubmissionsmade,vrde the impugnet^{judgment, dated 03'07'2008, confirmedthe} judgment, dat3d 07,06.2006,^{of the trial Court'Aggrievedby} the same, thr^{present CriminalRevision Case is filed by the} petitioners/A1^{and A2.}

¶32

Learned^{counselfor the petitioners/Aland A2 would} submit^{that th ) petitioner/Az passedaway some time back' The} petitioner/A1^{s only a car driver in the Collector':;Office'} Petitioner/A1^{las nothing to do with the preparation of the fake} certificates,^{dc cuments etc' Thereis no cogent and convincing} evidence.^{Th( finclings recorded by both the Courts beloware} perverse and^{1ot in consonancewith law' There is manifest} error on^{the fa:e of record' Moreover'the petitioner/A1is an old} aged^{person i nd ultimately' prayed to set aside the flndings} recorded^{by both the Courts below and allow the revision case'} as PraYed^for.

¶33

On the^{o her hand' the learned Additional Public Prosecutor} would submit^{that the findingsrecorded by both tht: Courts}

¶34

Dr'SA'I Crl.RCNo^{998of 2008}

¶35

¶36

belOW^{afe based on evidence'There cannot be re-appreciation} of evidence^{in a revisioncase' Neitherthereis error on the face} ofrecordnorthefindings.areperverse,SoaStointerferewith the impugned^{judgment'No groundsdo exist in favour of the} petitioner/Al to^{vary the impugnedjudgment' exercisingthe} power under Sections^{397 and 401 of Cr'P'C' and ultimately'} prayed to dismiss^{the revisioncase'}

¶37

Here, it is apt to^{mention that the object of the Revisional} jurisdiction is to set right a^{patent defect or an error of} jurisdiction or law. There has to be a^{well-foundederror and it} may not be appropriate for^{the Court to scrutinizethe orders,} which, on the face of them,^{bear a token of careful consideration} and appear to be in accordance^with law.^{RevisionalJurisdiction} can be invoked where the decisions under^{challengeare grossly} erroneous, there is no compliance with the^{provisions of law, the} findings recorded are based on no evidence, material evidence^is ignored or^judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Another well accepted norm is that the Revisional jurisdiction of the higher Court is very limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner, Revisional Court has to confine itself to the legality and propriety of the findings of the subordinate Court and as to whether the subordinate Court acted within its jurisdiction. A Revisional Court has no^jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the learned Judge and impose and substitute its own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr,P,C., confer only limited power on the Revisional Couft to the extent of satisfying about the legality, propriety or regularity of

¶38

Dr.SA,J Cll.R C No^993of20013

¶39

¶40

the^proceedings or^{orders of the lower court and not to act like} appellate Court^{or otherpurposes includingthe recordingof new} findings of^{fact c n fresh appraisal of evidence'}

¶41

S.AsSeenfromthematerialplacedonrecord,the prosecution,^{in I rder to prove its case' examinedPWs'l to 11} and^{got markedExs'Pi to p37' In the courseof investigation'} PW.11-Investiga'ing^{Officer' with the permissionof the Court} obtained^{the sF ecimen signaturesand hand writinqs of the} petitioners/Al^{ar d A2 and sent them to FSL for comparison with} the writings^{and signatures on the fake pattas said to havebeen} issued^{by the p ltitioners/A1and A2 to the victims' The hand} writing^{expert e)amined the sameand opinedthat the disputed} signatures^{are allying with the specimen signatures'lf the} petitioners/Al^{a rd A2 and issuedEx'P35-FSL opinion' dated} 31.03.2000'^{l lere is evidenceon record with regard to} manipulating^{an I fabricating the documentsand handingover} the^{same as D-l orm pafta certificatesto the victims' Thereis} cogent^{and coh€rent evidence'oral as well as documentary'to} substantiate^{the accusationslevelled againstthe petitioners/A1} and^{A2 for the cTences punishableunder Sections 420'468 and} 47\ ofi.P'C'^{Tl erefore' the trial Court is justifiedin convicting} and^{sentencingthe petitioners/A1 and A2 of the alleged} offences'^{Thea )pellate Court' having examinedthe contentions} and^{the entirec lse' confirmed the judgment passedby the trial} Both^{the Courtsbelow acted well withintheir} Court' jurisdiction'^{Ne ther the inadmissible evidence was considered} nor^{the material evidence was ignoredby both the Courts below'}

¶42

DT,SA,J Crl.R.C^{No 998of 2008}

¶43

¶44

The^{evidenceon record was wholly consideredand there is no} flaw in^{the impugnedjudgment'There is no patent illegality or} perversity^{in the impugnedjudgment'so as to interferewith the} same.^{The CriminalRevisionCaseis.devoidof meritand is liable} to be^dismissed'

¶45

In^{the result, the Criminal RevisionCase is dismissed} against the^{petitioner/A1, confirmingthe judgment'dated} 03.07.2008,^{passedin Crl'A'No'226of 2006 by the learnedI} Additional^{MetropolitanSessionsJudge' Hyderabad' The} suspension of^{sentence of imprisonment granted vide order '} dated 09.07.2008,^{passed in Crl'M'P'No'1341 of 2008 stands} revoked. The trial^{Court is directedtake all necessary measures} to secure the^{presenceof the petitioner/A1to undergo the} remaining^period of sentence^{of imprisonment.}

¶46

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,^{pending in this Criminal}

¶47

Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/-CH.VENKATESWARU^LU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To, 1 The IAdditional^{lVletropolitanSessions Judge, Hyderabad (with records)} 2 The xll Additional chief^{Metropolitantr/agistrate, Hyderabad.(withrecords)} 3 The Superintendent,^{Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy Dist} 4 The lnspector of Police,^{EastZone Team, Central Crime Station, Detective} department, Hyderabad.

¶52

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt at Hyderabadfor the Stateof} Telansana^(OUT)

¶53

6 One CC to SRl. II/OHD^{QASII,4Advocate} [OPUC]

¶54

7I Two One CD Spare CopyCopies KVL TR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1il11t2)21

ORDER

CRLRC.No.998^(,f 2008

¶59

4=
.,7
6^ \7,
I
(!:2 z
J
:1 I/i

¶60

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.,^l.

¶61

t,
tv fli
ft

Goka Rajaiah , Rajaiah and Another, v. State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goka Rajaiah , Rajaiah and Another, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.M.Rajyalaxmi, Vs P.Chandrasekhara Sastry and Another

Budarapu Srinivas, Vs Budarapu Sandhya Rani and Another

Anees Mohiuddin , Ameer , Abu Ayub Ansari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor

M/S. Om Surya Electronics Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S. a-Z Marketing and the State of A.P.

Smt. R.Krishnaveni, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp

T.Sri Ramachandra Murthy Vs State of Ap.Rep.Pp.Hyd.Another