Partly allowed

Katkam Thirupathi v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC11 Aug 2023CRLRC/1957/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revised criminal appeal maintaining conviction under Section 420 IPC but reducing imprisonment from one year to six months while affirming the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence of imprisonment reduced from one year to six months; fine of Rs.5,000 affirmed; bail bonds cancelled.

What the court decided

Katkam Thirupathi Vs the State of A.P. — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NorE : The Revision Petitioner/sole Accused was directed to be released on bail by theorderof the High Courtdated.20.09.2011 in Crl.M.p.No.2915 OF20i1 in Crl.R.C.No. 1 957 OF 201 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1957 OF 2011

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.p.C., aggrieved by the judgmentdated'14.09.20'1 1incrt.A.No.9Bof 20't0onthefiteofthl-courtof thelil Additional District and sessions Judge, Karimnagar, confirming the Judgment dated 10.08.2010 in c.c.No.183 of 2003 on the fite of the JudiJiat Magist;te df First Class, Sircilla, Karimnagar District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Katkam .Thirupathi, S/o Venkatesham, aged 37 years, Vysya R/o Gudem Village, Mustabad Mandal, Karimnagar DisIrict.

¶10

...REVISION PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State.Through the S:H I ,^p S., Mustabad, Karimnagar District Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh, FtyOeraOaO.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M RAM MOHAN REDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VIZARATH ALl, THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1957 OF 2O11

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Revision Case is hled by the petitioner/accused under Sections 397 and 40 1 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.J a6grieved by the judgmenl dated 14.09.201 1 passed in Criminat Appeal No.98 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar confirming the judgment dated 1O.O8.201O passed in CC No.183 of 2OO3 on the hle of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Karimnagar, F,C.C^-,lMIrC, Sircilla, Karimnagar District.

¶20

Heard Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for^,.he petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the [earned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶21

The main accusation against the petitioner is that he clishonestly induced the innocent ryots of Thadur, Ramannapalli, Ankushapur and Gopalraopaili Villages making them to believe that he q,i1l act as conduit between the rice millers and the farmers by purchasing paddy from the farmers and seliing the same tcr the rice rnillers and repay the sale proceeds on 72.01 .2OO3. Making such promise, he induced them to deliver paddy and subscquently fled away along with his family members by coilecting such sale proceeds arnorrnting to Rs.4,00,000/- ancl deceived them. Upon the cornplaint,

_--

Page 2 of5

a cdse in Crime No.15 of 2003^{underSection 42O of IPC was registered} and the criminal law was set in Inotion.

¶26

The learned Judicial Magistrate of^{First Class(special} Mobile Court), Karimnagar, FAC-JMFC,^{Sircilla,Karimnagar District} upon considering the entire material^{on recordin the forrnof evidence} of PWs. 1 to 1O and Exs.Pl to P3^{and hearing both sides, foundthe} petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section^{42O of IPC} and accordingly, convicted atrcl sentenced him to^{undcrgosimple} imprisonment for onc year and to a^{pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default} to suffer simple imprisonment for one^{rnonth. The iearnedIII} Additional Sessions Judge, I(arimnagar,^{vide judgment in Criminal} Appeal No.98 of 2010 confirmed the said^findings.

¶27

Aggrieved by the findings of both the^{Courts below,the} petitioner fiIed the present criminal revision case^{aliegingthat the} prosecution case lacks evidence, no receipts showing the^individual transactions were filed and the^{findings were madewithout looking} into the probabilities like extent of land^{pertainingto each farmerand} consequent production capacity. The Courts below^{failed to appreciate} the fact that the petitioner had taken^{paddy equivalentto the valueof} the fertilizers supplied by him. On the other^{hand, the version of the} prosecution is that the petitioner with dishonest intention cheated²³ farmers and fled away and filed IP No.2 of 2003^{declaring indebtedness}

¶28

Page 3 of5

¶29

and hence, he is liable to be punished for the acts committed by him under Section 42O ol lPC.

¶30

PWs.1 to B are the farmers and they all, in one voice, stated that the petitioner had purchased paddy from them and did not pay the amounts and postponed payment on one pretext or the other and hnally fled away from the village. PWs.3 to 8 further submitted that the petitioner served copies of IP No.2 of 2OO3, wherein thqy were made as respondents. PW9 is the owner of the house where the petitioner was a tenant at relevant time and his evidence goes to show. that the petitioner sustained losses in his business and vacated his house. Cross-exantination of the above witnesses on behalf of the petitioner did not gain any support to defeat the case of the prosecution or claim of the farmers. The farmers, who suffered in the Lrands of the petitioner, have categorically given the particuiars of paddy supplied by them to the petitioner in trx. p I -complaint. The petitioner did not examine any witness or file any receipts or books to establish his contention that he has taken paddy from the farmers for the amount equivalent to the value of the fertilizers/ pesticides supplied by him.

¶31

Having regard to the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner, s.ith a dishonest intention to cheat the innocent fanners, had_ taken padd1, arr6 evaded repayment and hnally fled a,,vay to unknor.r.n place an r-1 subsequently fiied insolvency petition making

J I

)

.E=E

Page 4 of5

some of the^{farmers as parties admittinghis indebtedness' The said} fact itself is sufficient^{to hold that the petitionerhad takenstocks with} a clishonest^{intentionto cheatthc farmers and camouflaged himself} from them to^{escape from the liability of repayment' The above said} actsofthepetitionerclearlyattractedtheingredientsofSection42oof IPC and accorclingly,^{both thc Courtsbelow have rightl/ convictcd the} petitioner. The^{findings of both the Courts below are made ou careful} and meticulous^{scrutinyof the entire material available on record and} the same does^{not require any interference by this Court'}

¶37

So far as the^{substantivesentenceof imprisonment} imposed by the^{Courts below is concerned since the date of inception} of litigation, the^{petitioneris roamingaroundthe Courts by facing} trauma and^{mentalagony due to his indebtednessand filed insolvency} petition to declare^{him as insolvent' In that view of the matter' this} Court takes a^{lenient view by reducingthe substantial sentence of} simple imprisonment^{of one year, as imposed in CC No' 183 of 2003} and confirmed in^{Criminal Appeal No'98 of 2O1Oto that of six months} while upholding^{the fine arnount of Rs'5,OOO/-awardedin CC No' 183} of 2003.

¶38

g. ExcePt the above^modihcation 1n respect of Period^of sentence, this criminal^{revision casein all other aspects is dismissed} The bait bonds of^{the petitioner shall stand cancelledand the} petitioner is directed^{to surrenderbefore the Court below to serve the}

¶39

I'agc 5 ol5

¶40

remaining period of sentence. However, the petitioner is entitled to the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.

¶41

Sd/. M. RAMANA KRIS NA DEPUry REGI R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla, Karimnagar District

¶47

The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimanagar District.

¶48

The Station House officer, Mustabad Police Station, Karimnagar

¶49

The Superintendent, District Jail, Karimnagar

¶50

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶51

One CC to SRl. M RAM MOHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CD Copies

PMc..

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110812023

-L -
=-+.,
-r*''
s
5t-<br>t
$ , ..,i
.,.'.,,1
.r.li,'-,:\ -:: J, ;,
-'- -1--

¶58

ORDER

¶59

CRLRC.No.1957 of 2011

¶60

DISMISSING THE

¶61

CRL.REVISION CASE

¶62

?r.^0e-3' zo[e\

Katkam Thirupathi v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Katkam Thirupathi v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madipally Amruthamma Vs the Stateof Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Smt.N.Leela Kumari, N.Lalaguda, Sec-Bad and Anr., Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., High Court and Anr.

Bollam Ravi, Warangal Dt., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp and Anr.

Smt G.Sumalatha Vs G.Ashok Kumar and Another

Yeruva Inna Reddy, Sec Bad and Anr. Vs Yeruva Vijay Bhasker Reddy, Hyd and Anr.

Sirasala Nagaiah, Nalgonda Dt., Vs M/S. Shriram City Union Fin Ltd., Nalgonda Andanr, Rep Pp.