Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Bhaskaran

Telangana HC15 Jul 2022CRLA/1631/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused for cheating. The High Court analyzed evidence regarding purchase orders and payments. The Court found the prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of innocence and the trial Court's acquittal was maintained based on incomplete evidence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal preferred by the State is dismissed, and the judgment of the trial Court maintaining acquittal is upheld.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs R. Bhaskaran — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

'f t.. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1631 OF 2010

¶6

Petition under Section 378 (1)(3) Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated. 05-1 1-2008^passed in C.C. No. 10BO I 2002 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad . iIfltr.,j

¶7

n: r,, :State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of hra Pradesh, Hyde rabad.

¶8

...APE LLANT/PETITION ER

¶9

AND

¶10

R. Bhaskaran, S/o. Rama Krishnan^R7o. D3,^27th Cross^{Street, Tirunelveli,} Tamilnad u.

¶11

...RESPODENT/ACCUSED

¶12

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI SUDERSHAN,^{ASSISTANT PUBLIC} PROSECUTOR FORPUBLIC^{PROSECUTOR(TG)}

¶13

:.
I
1;

¶14

I for the Respondent : None^appeared rt deliVered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶15

.// // a

¶16

¶17

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1631^{OF 2O1O}

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

The State hied the appeal aggrieved^{by the acquittalof} the responclent for the offence under Sections^{42O, 406 arrd} 408 of IPC vide^judgment in CC No.1086 of 2002,^dated 05.11.2008 passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the accused was working in Uni Sankyo Limited at Gaganpahad, Hyderabad, as branch Manager. His responsibilities include getting product literature and promotional inputs and stationery printed. lt is the case of the prosecution that the accused misusing his pou,ers, issued three purchase orders rvith M/s.Surya Alt Printers and M/s.Sandilia Art printers and cheated the company to a tune of Rs.3,15,000/_ as there ,ras no material :hat was received. For the said reason, the responclent/accrused is liable for the offences as mentioned sl-lpra.

¶21

¶22

The prosecution exarrrined witnesses P.Ws.l to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P55 to prove their case.

¶23

P.Ws.l and 2, who are representatives of the compaly supported the complaint. P.Ws.3 and 5 are proprietors of printing press, who took orders from the company. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer.

¶24

P.W. 1 deposed that during audit, it ',vas found that the respondent/accused issued purchase orders, but the materia-1 was not received, however, payments were made. He further stated that the accused placed orders with M/.Sandilia Printers on 04.05.1999 for Rs.3,11,850/-,but no material lr,as supplied. Likeu,ise, order payment of Rs. 1,80,345/- was also made to M/s.Surya Art Printers but no material was received.

¶25

The trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused lor thc followir-ig reasol-rs; i) Though the alleged fraud was detccted while he was in service, his resignation was accepted without any objection; ii) there were no complaints from any quarter, though the respondent/accused worked in Uni Sancyo for a period of ten years; iii) P.W. i admits that the

¶26

, .)

¶27

¶28

respondent/ accused cannot solely issue any purchase order, but there are two other persons, who sign such purchase orders; irr) If there are any irregularities, it cannot be solely attributed to the respondent/accused herein; v) It is also admitted that unless marketing and Iinance departments verihes the orders and produce receipts along r.vith biil particulars, only then the company releases the payment.

¶29

Sri Sudershan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the prosecution rnas able to prove the guilt of the respondent/accused by examining six witnesses and also marking of the relevant documents under Exs.Pl to P55. Since the audit report was clear that the amounts were paid without receiving aly n-raterial, the said audit report has to be relied upon to convict the accused

¶30

B. Having perused the record, the case is of circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad

¶31

Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtrat l1rr.'ic1 as lollorvs:

¶32

1984 AIR 1622

¶33

¶34

"3:3. Before a case against an accused uestitw on c cumstantial euidence can be said to be fully established the follouing conditions must be fulflled as laid doturt itt Hanumat's u. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091.

¶35

1 . The cira nnstances front uhich the conclLtsiort of guilt is to be dra u.tn should be fullg established;

¶36

The facts so established should be consislenl wi.th the hgpothesis of guilt and the acansed, that is to scty, thcu should not be explainable on ang other hgpothests except thet the acansed is gttiltg;

¶37

The ciranm.stances should be of o conclusiue nature and tendencg

¶38

TheA should erclude euery possible hypothesis except the one to be proued; and

¶39

There must be a chnin of euidence so complete as not to leoue ang reasonable ground for the conclusion consislerlt utith the innocence of tte accused and must shou.t that in all human probability the oct must haue been done by the ctccused.

¶40

3:4. The cardinal pinciple of criminol^juisprudence is tlnt a case can be said to be proued only uLhen there is certain and explicit euidence and no pure moral conuictiort."

¶41

As seen from the evidence, P.W.t himsell admitted that

¶42

r,vhen purchase orders are lnade, apart from the accused t'*,o others have to sign. He further admitted that unless the orders are verified thoroughly pursuant to receiving the goods along with bili particulars, only then the compaly uses to make payments. When such procedure is admittedly adoptcd by the company, the question of any entrustment to the accused does +r$

¶43

not arise. Further, when the payments are made after

\ \

f I

verilication of the orders and the goods received, it cannot be said that the accused had cheated the company to a tune of Rs.3,15,000,/-.

¶49

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State ofAndhra Pradesh2 held that under the Indian criminal^{jurisprudence,} the accused has two fundamenta-l protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a^judgment of acquitta,l in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may er.en indicate a false impiication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.

¶50

For the aforementioned reasons, the^prosecution has failed to make out a case to reverse the order oi the trial Court acquitting the respondent/ accused.

¶51

'120L31^{1l supremecourtcases 688}

(

I I

L2. In the said circumstances, the^judgment of the trial

¶56

Court is maintained and the Criminal Appeal preferred by the

¶57

State is dismissed.

¶58

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT GISTRAR

//TRUE COI]Y'

SECTION OFFICER

To, -.+ : ,;

1l-l.The lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad . Ziilte^{Sub lnspectorof Police,Bbnjara} HiltiPolice btalion , nyOeranaO. 3.r::Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at , ,. Hyderabad [OUT]

¶64

'^{4liiTwoCD CoPies}

¶65