Dismissed

Nanavath Rangamma, Saleem Nagar Colony, Hyderabad v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court

Telangana HC13 Dec 2024CRLRC/2065/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the criminal revision petition seeking quashing of conviction and sentence. The court upheld the conviction for cheating under Section 420 IPC but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone due to the lapse of time.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; directed to deposit fine; bail bonds cancelled.

Nanavath Rangamma, Saleem Nagar Colony, Hyderabad Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/^{Accused was directed to be released on bail by the} oiO"r oitf'u High^{Courtdated.09-1'l-2010 in Crl.RC.tvl.P.No.3035 of 2010 in Crl.R.C} No.2065 of 2010.

¶3

¶4

[32es]

¶5

. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶6

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH^{DAY OFDECEIVIBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASE NO: 2065 OF 2010}

¶10

¶11

criminal Revision case^{filed undersection 397 and 401 of cr.PC against} the Judgment dated 02-11-2010^{made in crl.A.No.42of 2010 on the file of the} Court oi the lV Additional^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Hyderabadpreferred} against the Judgment^{dated 01-02-2010 made in c.c.No.403 of 2007 on the file of} th; Court of the Vll Additional^{Chief lvletropolitanMagistrate, Hyderabad}

¶12

Between:

¶13

Nanavath Rangamma,^{Wo. Jamla,Occ} Housewife R/o.^{1 6-11 -16/P/65, Sri} . Banjdra Nagar, Saleem Nagar^{Colony,Hyderabad}

¶14

...Petitioner/Accused

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of A.P-, Represented^{by its Public Prosecutor'HighCourt of} A.P.,Hyderabad.

¶17

...Respondent

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner :^{SriC Sharan Reddy representing} Sri D Kodandarami^ReddY

¶19

Counsel for the ResPondent : Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶20

The Court made the following;^ORDER

¶21

THE HO]TOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENIIGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2065 0F 2010

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The⁽ r'im inal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/ar:c rrsed against the judgment dated O2. 1 1.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional N{r,tropoiitan Sessions Judge, Hyclerabacl (for short, "the appellale {)ourt") conlirming the judgment dated 01.02.201O in c.c.No.4()i of 2oo7 on the fire of the rearned vil Additionar Chief Metrbpr litar.r Magistrate, Hyderabad (for shor -, ,,the triai Court").

¶24

Heard Nh-.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.D.Kodancla Rami Reddy, learned counsel for th:: petitioner and Mr.E.Gan:sh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent State

¶25

The briel facts of the case are that pWs.l to 4 7 and the petitioner/ ac:r rsed are the residents of same local ty namely, Saleemnagar and they were known to each other. Whileso, nine months prior ;o 28.O3.2006, the accused collected Fs.25,000/each from PWr.1 to 4 and Z on a false representaticn that she would set ttre house plots to them under Andhr a pradesh,

¶26

¶27

Government Housing^{Scheme and failed to do so; the accused} neither fulfilled her^{promise nor returned the amount.When} PWs.1 to 4 and.7 insisted her^{to return the amount,the accused} and her daughter executed^{a bond under Ex P2 undertakingto} return the amount by^{selling her house,if she fails to return the} amount. But the accused^{failed toreturn the amount and} thereby, cheated PWs.l^{to 4 and 7 with dishonest intention'} Basing on the said^{facts, the present caseis registered'}

¶28

¶29

The trial Court^{vide judgment dated Ol'O2'2O|Oin} C.C.No.403^.of 2OO7^{found the petitioner/accused guilty for the} offence under Sections^{42O of I'P.C. and sentencedhim to} undergo rigorous imprisonment^{for a periodof two (2) years and} to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-,^{in default, she was directed to undergo} simple imprisonment^{for one year. Aggrieved by the same, the} petitioner preferred an APPeal.

¶30

The appellate Court,^{vide impugnedjudgment,dismissed} the Appea,l confirming^{the judgmentpassed by the trial Court'} Assailing the same,^{the petitionerpreferredthe present Revision'}

¶31

Learned counsel for^{the petitioner submitted that the trial} Court as well as the^{appeilateCourt, relying on the eviden^ce-.of} --

¶32

I t

¶33

¶34

:-+Iry=z!i' l , F "i7
,y.
,/

¶35

PWs. 1 to 4 and 7 , erroneously convicted the petiti:rner for the alleged offenc,r Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revis,ion

¶36

7 . Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submittt:d that the trial Court as^.,ve11 as the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record rightly passed therr respective judgments and interference of this Court, at this slage, is not warranted. Th:refore, he seeks to dismiss this Revisior-r.

¶37

B. On bel-ri Llf of the prosecution, the trial Cour t examined PWs.1 to 7. arcl marked trxs.p1 to p3. On bel-ra1f of the defence, none \,ere e ramined and no document u,as rrrarked. On considering th: material available on record, the trial ()ourt found that there is :onsistency in the evidence of pWs. 1 :o I and Z which shor.vs t tat the accused collected the amount fr,rm them by making fraudt lent representation that she wourd get house sites for them. The s;ame is not disproved; pWs.l to 4 and 7 do not have any enrr ity against the accused and hence, t here is no reason for thctn to give false evidence against th,: assusa4. Therefore, ever if Ex P2 is eschewed still the evidence of pWs. 1 to 4 and 7 prove the ingredients of Section 42O of I.p.C. The non_ examination of independent rvitnesses by the prosecution is not fatal to the pro secution case. pws. 1 to 4 and, 7 are iir erates and ,/,

a-)

believing the words of accused, they gave the amount by selling gold ornaments. Stating thus, the trial Court rendered its judgment.

¶42

In the appeal, the appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the evidence available on record found that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and 7 is sufficient and the same is corroborative with each other; apart from this, there is evidence of PWS and PW6/Police Officers who received Ex P1 report, issued F.I.R. and investigated the case. Therefore, the appellate Court rendered its^judgment.

¶43

¶44

This Court, vide order dated 09.17.2010^{suspended the} sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner, by^the appeliate Court, pending Revision and released her on bail^on executing a personal bond for Rs.5,0OO/ with two^sureties for^a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VII^Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Later, the^matter under-went several adj ournments.

¶45

In the present case on hand, both the Courts held^{that the} petitioner was guilty of the offences rlnder Section 42O of I.P.C., which finding, in my considered view, does not. call^for interference, in exercise of revisional^jurisdiction under^Section

-.).-.

I I

aia- l8ra,

t ,

397 Cr.P.C. He tce, I find no reason to interfere witlr the well considered judgrr.ents passed by both the Courts

¶53

Having re,lard to the submissions of both thr: Iearned counsel and u oon considering the fact that the petitioner .' , underwent menrnl agony by roaming around the trial Court as I well as the apy r:i1ate Court artd as fourteen long ve,ars have elapsed from the date of filing of this Revision, this cotrrt cleems it appropriate r o reduce the sentence imposed agr Linst the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already und e rgone by her

¶54

The petitiorLr:r is directed to deposit a sum ol' Rs.1,30,0O0/to the credit ol (.c.No.403 of 2oor on the fiie ol the leiLrned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, H-yderabad within a period of three rr onths from the date of receipt of a cop,y of this order. On such d,:oosit PWs.1 to 4 and Z are directed to r,,rithdraw Rs.25,000/- eacl upon fiiing an appropriare application before the trial Court. .A n amount of Rs.S,OOO/ shall remain with the state. If the petitr rner fails to comply with the aforesaid d irection, she shall suffer r.he judgment dated 02.11.2010 in r.lriminal Appeal No.42 of 201O passed by the learned IV A<tditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Hyderabad.

¶55

¶56

¶57

Except the above modification, 1n all other aspects, this Criminal Revrsion Case^{stands dismissed. The bail bonds} executed by the^{petitionerif anY, shall stand cancelled}

¶58

Miscellaneous^{Petitions,pending if any, shall stand ciosed'}

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI E UTY REGISTRAR

¶61

CTION OFFICER

¶62

¶63

The lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2. The Vtl Additionat Chief Metropotitan Ir/agisiLte, iyoeraUad

¶64

The Superintendent, ce,.trar prison crreicrraiguoa, Ranga Reddy District 4 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High corrt ioiir," staie of r"r'anga.a at

¶65

Hyderabad [OUT]

¶66

d:,^'{ 5. One CC to gri D Kodandaramr Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies

ADK !p-

'-i<br>

.r t:

HIGH COUR''

DATED:13112',12024

t:f

ORDER

CRLRC.No,2C65 ot 2010

¶76

s
, if SLi t r. )"
it.
(t -
c
O t)6,i s pAl APB CYr ;M5 gf

¶77

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶78

<br>ep b e6

Nanavath Rangamma, Saleem Nagar Colony, Hyderabad v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanavath Rangamma, Saleem Nagar Colony, Hyderabad v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court

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

Sama Vema Reddy, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Satla Sri Sri Vs State of Telangana

Vema Kalpana Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri.M.K.Venu Murali Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Smt. Tallpragada Lalitha Rau alias Lalitha Kumari Rau Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Yousuf and Another Vs Syed Moosa and Another