THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRL.A.No.511 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.2009 recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in CRL.A.No.95 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 471 of I.P.C. The appellant is the State.
The case of the prosecution is that A-1 to A-3 hatched a plan and conspired together and obtained loan from Prudential Co-operative Bank Limited, Secunderabad by impersonating the complainant (P.W.1) as A-2 and mortgaging joint property of A-1 and P.W.1.
The trial Court framed charges against A-1 to A-3 for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C. plea of the accused is one of total denial. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and X1 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused Exs.D1 was marked.
On considering the entire material available on record, the trial Court, vide judgment in C.C.No.410 of 2006 dated 25.03.2008, found A-1 to A-3 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 471 of I.P.C. and consequently convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 417 I.P.C. and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 60 days for the offence punishable under Section 471 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A-1 to A-3 preferred Crl.A.No.95 of 2008 and that the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by judgment dated 20.02.2009, after re-appreciating the entire material on record, acquitted the accused as he found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Against the said judgment of acquittal, the State preferred the present appeal.
Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents-accused.
I have gone through the evidence and the judgments of the Court below. P.W.1 and A-1 are brothers and they are joint owners of house property bearing No.15-5-586, Ashok Bazar, Hyderabad. It is alleged that by mortgaging the said property and A-2 impersonating himself as P.W.1, A-1 and A-2 obtained loan of Rs.2,05,000/- on 20.01.1995 jointly from Prudential Co- operative Bank Limited by executing relevant documents with forged signatures of P.W.1 and that A-3 stood as guarantor for 3 the said loan. Subsequently, the loanees became defaulters and the bank filed a case for recovery of loan amount before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and obtained an award and then filed E.P.716 of 1998 for realization of Rs.4,27,009/- with interest covered by the award and that P.W.1 received notice in Execution Petition, approached the bank, verified the records and found his signatures were forged and that since joint property was put to sale by the bank to realize the award amount, P.W.1 and A-1 discharged the loan amount to the bank. The appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence of Bank Managers, who were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, held that P.W.1 was also a co-loanee along with his brother A-1 and both of them executed Exs.P2 to P4 jointly. From a perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that P.W.1 gave a false report to the police with a view to avoid repayment of his share of loan amount. There is no evidence let in to show that anybody other than P.W.1 forged signatures of P.W.1 in Exs.P2 to P4.
Having considered the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondents-accused and after perusing the judgment of the appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court is justified in recording the acquittal, as nothing is pointed out to interfere with the judgment of the appellate 4 Court. The appellate Court discussed the entire evidence in detail and came to a correct conclusion that the respondents- accused were not guilty of the offences with which they were charged. The evidence let in by the prosecution does not inspire confidence to prove the guilt of the respondents- accused and the appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in acquitting the respondents-accused. I find no reason or justification to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 23-02-2021 Gsn.