THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE C. SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 103 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment dated 20.04.2007 rendered by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in S.C.No.395 of 2004, the appellant approached this Court by way of this Appeal.
2. In the grounds of Appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the learned Judge ought to have seen the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act'); the learned Judge ought to have observed that the respondent/accused confessed the commission of offence in the presence of the mediators and that he ought to have seen that the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and all of them supported the case of the prosecution and thus, the judgment of the trial Court is unsustainable and therefore, this Appeal.
3. Reported to take it as heard by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
Dr. CSL, J 2 Crl.A.No.103 of 2014
4. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the appellant established beyond all reasonable doubt before the trial Court that the respondent/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC;
2) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt before the trial Court that the respondent/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act;
3) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the law to the said facts as contended by the appellant which needs interference by this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction.
5. POINTS 1 & 2:
The crux of the case as projected in the charge sheet is that the respondent/accused is running a chit fund business and P.W.1 joined as a Member of the chit for Rs.1,00,000/- and the said chit commenced on 16.10.1996 and it last till 16.10.1998 and P.W.2 paid all the monthly instalments of Rs.4,000/- regularly and the chit was knocked down on his name on 16.10.1998 and the Dr. CSL, J 3 Crl.A.No.103 of 2014 respondent/accused has to pay Rs.96,000/- as prize money to him but he has paid him only Rs.44,000/- and failed to pay the rest of the amount.
The Record discloses that putting into scrutiny the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P.1 to P.6, the learned Judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the charges levelled against the respondent/accused and thereby, acquitted him. The findings arrived at and the conclusion drawn are disputed by the appellant through this Appeal. No doubt, as rightly contended by the appellant in the grounds of Appeal, all the 6 witnesses examined by the prosecution supported its case. However, when the record is meticulously perused, P.W.1 during the course of cross- examination clearly stated that he does not possess any document to show that he was admitted as a Member of chit with the respondent/accused. Though Exs.P.1, P.1(A) and P.1(B) were got marked, their genuineness is not established as provided under law. For getting a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, there is every necessity on the part of the prosecution to establish the aspect of dishonest inducement by the accused for delivery of property or to make, alter or destroy wholly or part of the valuable security or anything of that sort.
Dr. CSL, J 4 Crl.A.No.103 of 2014 In the case on hand, no such dishonest inducement is projected or established by the prosecution. Thus, the aspect of cheating is found not established beyond all reasonable doubt.
Now, coming to the other charge that is for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act, when the said Act is meticulously perused, it is found that the said Act came into effect from 01.11.1999 vide G.O.Ms.No.348, Home (General-B), dated 29.10.1999. The basis of the prosecution's case is Ex.P.2 - Complaint. In Ex.P.2, there is a clear mention that the chit started on 16.10.1996 and ended on 16.10.1998.
As discussed supra, the Act came into effect from 01.11.1999. Thus, the said Act itself was not in force by the date of the alleged offence. Therefore, the respondent/accused cannot be held guilty of the charge levelled against him invoking the provisions of the said Act. An observation to that effect was also made by the trial Court. Hence, this Court considers that the prosecution totally failed to establish the charges levelled against the respondent/accused before the trial Court.
6. POINT No.3:
When the judgment of the trial Court is perused, this Court finds that the trial Court has dealt with all the aspects of the case and gave clear findings on each and every charge. None of the Dr. CSL, J 5 Crl.A.No.103 of 2014 observations made by the learned Judge of the trial Court needs any interference by this Court. None of the grounds urged could shake the validity of the judgment of the trial Court which is supported by reasons. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be interfered with.
7. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming the judgment rendered by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in S.C.No.395 of 2004 dated 20.04.2007.
______________________ DR. C. SUMALATHA, J 21st OCTOBER, 2021.
kvni