THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.32 of 2007
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment, dated 7.12.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada, in refusing to return the cash of Rs.1,80,000/-(Out of Rs.1,84,000/-) seized from the possession of the revision petitioners and directing the said amount to be returned to P.W.1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that P.W.2 is doing business in Oils under the name and style of M/s. Mahesh Trading Company and P.W.1, who is his brother, used to assist P.W.2. About three months prior to 12.7.2000, while P.W.1 was travelling in a train from Tuni to Vizag, Accused No.1 met him in the train and introduced himself as a Contractor at Kakinada and disclosed his name as Rama Rao. While so, one week prior to 12.7.2000, Accused No.2 went to the shop of P.W.1 and disclosed his name as Raghu and informed that Accused No.1 sent him and offered two loads of Palmoil for sale. Accused No.2 further informed that they are getting two tankers of oil and they will sell it at cheaper rate in the market. When, P.W.1 asked the rate, Accused No.2 informed that Accused No.1 will talk with him on the night itself by phone and went away by collecting the phone number. On the 2 same night, Accused No.1 telephoned and informed P.W.1 that he will supply the oil @ Rs.180/- against the market rate of Rs.210/- per 10 Kgs., and asked him for immediate payment of cash after delivery of oil. P.W.1 informed that he will arrange the cash. After two days, Accused No.2 visited the shop of P.W.1 and asked about confirmation. Thereafter, Accused No.2 went to the shop of P.W.1 and informed that they well check the cash before giving delivery, as they suffered in the hands of Vijayawada party as they gave fake notes. Then, P.W.1 questioned him how can he find out the fake notes, then Accused No.2 removed a liquid bottle and Rs.50/- note from his pocket and applied some liquid, the place where the liquid applied on the note was changed into Red Colour. Thereafter, Accused No.2 collected Rs.50/- from P.W.1 and applied some liquid and it is found as usual and on seeing it, P.W.1 blindly believed them.
3. While so, on 12.7.2000 between 10.00 am., and 11.00 am., Accused No.1 telephoned to P.W.1 and informed that his men will bring two tankers of oil today in between 3.00 pm., and 4.00 pm., and asked to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to them after receiving oil and he will collect the remaining amount of Rs.24,000/- on the next day. At about 1.20 pm., Accused No.2 telephoned to P.W.1 and asked him to arrange the cash that the tankers are arriving. Accordingly, Accused Nos.2 & 3 came to the shop of P.W.1 and asked him to show the cash of Rs.3,00,000/-. On that, P.W.1 showed them the amount of 3 Rs.3,00,000/- and they checked the cash. They took Rs.2,75,000/- and kept the remaining of Rs.25,000/- in the bag and returned to P.W.1 by informing to pay the said amount along with the balance of Rs.24,000/- on the next day. Later, Accused Nos.2 & 3 kept the same bag in the suit case by stating that they will return, but they took the bag and left that place. After verification, P.Ws.1 & 2 found that there is no currency in the bag and the bag is filled with rough papers. Basing on the report of P.W.1, police registered a case in Cr.No.66 of 2000 for the offence under section 420 IPC.
4. The learned trial Judge after going through oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused for the offence under section 420 IPC and directed to return the seized cash lying in the Bank to P.W.1 after expiry of appeal time.
5. Aggrieved by the said order of returning of cash to P.W.1, the petitioners filed Crl.A.No.213 of 2004 on the file of the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada and after considering all the contentions, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the said order of returning cash to P.W.1.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed the present revision case before this Court.
4
7. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent / State.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners have been acquitted by the learned Magistrate, the money seized from their possession ought to have been returned to them. He also further contended that they were not held guilty by the learned Magistrate and they are entitled to receive the cash admittedly seized from their possession. He further argued that the prosecution implicated them falsely in this case and recovery of money from their possession is a myth, hence seized cash belongs to them only.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that the cash belongs to P.W.1 and accused are not entitled for return of the said cash.
10. Admittedly, the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly shows that cash of Rs.1,84,000/- was seized from the possession of the revision petitioners, which was deposited in the Court. During pendency of the trial, P.W.1 filed Crl.M.P.No.764 of 2001 seeking interim custody of the said cash. In the said petition, petitioners received notice and reported no objection for giving interim custody of the cash in favour of P.W.1. Now, after the case ends in acquittal, revision petitioners cannot ask for return of cash. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in 5 Crl.M.P.No.764 of 2001, their counsel without their instructions has stated no objection for interim custody of cash in favour of P.W.1. Further, the petitioners were given benefit of doubt by the trial Court. That does not mean that the cash belongs to the revision petitioners. Revision petitioners were acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt as the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Considering the said apsect, petitioners are not entitled for return of money as they specifically reported no objection for giving interim custody of the cash to P.W.1. In the above circumstances, there are no valid grounds in the present revision case and the same is liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merit. Therefore, this Court does not find any valid reasons to interfere with the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed.
11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the Judgment, dated 7.12.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada, is hereby confirmed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 7th January, 2021.
RPD 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY Criminal Revision Case.No.32 of 2007 Dated: 7.01.2021 RPD