HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1073 OF 2007 and 723 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1.
The Accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.62 of 2003 were tried for the offence under Section 420 of IPC for cheating several persons by running chits and converting the chit amounts into valuable securities like lands, houses, shops etc., and mortgaging them at Hyder Shah Kot and Ranga Reddy District and Prudential Bank, Secunderabad and obtained Rs.29,00,000/-. The second charge against the appellants was under Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act of 1999').
2. After conclusion of trial, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad found A2 and A3 not guilty for all the offences charged. However, A1 was found guilty under Section 5 of the Act of 1999 and also under Section 420 of IPC. However, for the reason of all the depositors, except two filing memos stating that the matter has been settled out of court and they have no grievance against the accused, learned 2 Sessions Judge sentenced A1 for a period of 25 days under Section 420 IPC and also under Section 5 of the Act of 1999. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the period of 25 days was already undergone by A1 during his remand period from 03.02.2001 to 01.03.2001.
3. Criminal Appeal No.1073 of 2007 is filed by seven members of the chits questioning the acquittal of A2 and A3 and also the sentence of 25 days imposed against A1.
4. Criminal Appeal No.723 of 2008 is filed by the State questioning the acquittal of A2 and A3.
5. Since both the appeals are arising out of judgment in C.C.No.62 of 2003, they are being heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.
6. Learned Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence, as far as A2 and A3 are concerned, to show that they are partners of the firm M/s.Sandhya Chits and Finances or M/s.Sandhya Enterprises. P.Ws.1 and 6, who were examined in the Court never stated anything about A2 and A3 except 3 assisting A1 in conducting his business. However, P.Ws.20 and 21, who are Investigating Officers in their evidence stated that investigation did not disclose any complicity of A2 and A3. In the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge found A2 and A3 not guilty of the charges framed against A2 and A3.
7. Having gone through the evidence of the witneses, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be found fault with. In the entire evidence of the witnesses, there is no narration to attract any of the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC as far as A2 and A3 are concerned. In the said circumstances, the appeal filed by the State in Criminal Appeal No.723 of 2008 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed, as there are no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal.
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or 1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 4 investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
9. When two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused has to be considered and more so, in a case of acquittal, when there are no glaring infirmities in the finding of the trial court, the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with.
10. The evidence of witnesses is that A2 and A3 were assisting A1 in conducting his business, no other evidence is brought on record to show that they were privy to any cheating. In the said circumstances, the well reasoned judgment of acquittal of the trial Court cannot be interfered with on the sole ground that A2 and A2 are related to A1 5 assisting him during his business. To make A2 and A3 liable along with A1, it has to be shown that they have entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat. There is no such evidence to infer any culpability against A2 and A3.
11. Coming to the case of A1, the learned Sessions Judge, after recording evidence, has found that all the amounts, which were due to the chit members were repaid, for which reason, the sentence of 25 days was imposed on A1.
12. The punishment prescribed under Section 420 of IPC is up to seven years with no minimum sentence. Severity of punishment depends on each case and depending on the facts and circumstance of a given case, punishment can extend up to seven years for the offence of cheating and up to ten years for the offence under Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors Financial Establishments Act, 1999.
13. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1073 of 2007 did not state that they did not receive any amount. However, they stated that they did not file any memos on their behalf admitting payment for the said amount and withdrawing the 6 case. However, no specific ground of non payment is taken by any of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1073 of 2007, who are victims.
14. The crime was registered on 17.11.2000, 22 years have passed by. In the said circumstances, in the case, where the victims were compensated even prior to the judgment of the trial Court in the year 2007, I do not find any ground to interfere with the sentence that was imposed on A1 and also against acquittal of A2 and A3.
15. In view of above facts and circumstances, both the Criminal Appeals are dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 21.07.2022 kvs 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1073 of 2007 & 723 OF 2008 Date: 21.07.2022.
kvs 8