Singupuram Mohana Rao, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 375 AP

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Crl.R.C.No.2128 of 2006

ORDER:-

The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto

complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, was working as

Medical Superintendant, Tekkali Area Hospital in the year 1999.

On 08.12.1999, there was a check visit of the Anti Corruption

Bureau personnel to the Tekkali Area Hospital and the same

was reported in the local newspapers from 13th January to 15th

January and again on 19th January and 7th February, 2020.

Thereafter, the petitioner herein, who is Accused No.1 and

another person, who was shown as Accused No.2 had

telephonically called P.W.1, representing themselves as officers

of the Central Bureau of Investigation and initially demanded

Rs.1,00,000/- to close the case that was being filed against

P.W.1 and to ensure that he was not arrested. On 11.05.2020,

the petitioner herein met P.W.1 and demanded payment of

atleast Rs.20,000/- by 17.05.2000. On 16.05.2000, P.W.1 filed

a complaint before an Inspector of C.B.I and a trap was laid for

the petitioner. On 17.05.2000, the petitioner came to the clinic

of P.W.1 and was caught accepting Rs.20,000/- from P.W.1.

Thereafter, a voice identification test was carried out in the

presence of independent witnesses wherein P.W.1 had identified

the voice of Accused Nos.1 and 2 as the persons, who had

telephonically called him to extract money from him under the

false representation that they were C.B.I Officers and would get

the case proposed to be filed against him closed.

2. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and trial

taken up. 14 witnesses were examined for the prosecution. 26

exhibits were marked for the prosecution apart from six material

objects. On behalf of the petitioner, one witness was examined

and one exhibit was marked.

3. The case of the petitioner was that he was falsely

implicated in the case. His case is that P.W.1 knew him even

earlier and had requested partnership in a cold storage plant

that the petitioner was proposing to set up. As the petitioner

was not willing to accede to the demand of P.W.1 about the

sharing of the subsidy that would be given in relation to the

setting up of a cold storage plant, P.W.1 had developed ill-will

against the petitioner and had created the entire story of being

threatened by the petitioner and Accused No.2 before the trial

Court. To buttress his contention, the petitioner got marked

Ex.X1, which is said to be an application given to the bank for

opening of current account in the name of the Cold Storage.

This application was made by the petitioner as sole proprietor of

the cold storage. The said application also contained an

endorsement that P.W.1 would be joining in the firm as a

partner after appropriate documents are filed. On the basis of

this exhibit, the petitioner contended that the petitioner and

P.W.1 knew each other and were contemplating establishment of

a cold storage, in relation to which, he was in contact with

P.W.1. In such a situation, the question of passing himself as a

CBI officer would not arise as he was a practicing advocate at

Visakhapatnam and this fact was known to P.W.1.

4. It may also be noted that in the course of cross

examination, various questions were put to P.W.1 to make him

admit that he knew the petitioner even earlier. However,

nothing has been elicited from P.W.1 to doubt his statement

that he had no prior acquaiantance with the petitioner.

5 The trial Court after considering the evidence and

the arguments raised on both sides, had convicted both the

petitioner and Accused No.2 under the charges of Sections

120-B, 419 and 420 of I.P.C and sentenced both to undergo six

months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 120-

B, six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 419

I.P.C and further simple imprisonment for a period of one year

and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of which, to

undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The said sentences being concurrent.

6. The petitioner herein and Accused No.2 had

preferred appeals before the I Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Srikakulam, who acquitted Accused No.2. The

conviction under Section 120-B of I.P.C against the petitioner

was set-aside and he was acquitted of the said offence as

Accused No.2 was being acquitted.

7. Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that once Accused No.2 has been

acquitted on the ground that the voice test was disbelieved in

the case of Accused No.2, the same benefit would have to be

given to the petitioner also. He also relies upon the Judgments

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs.

State of Maharashtra1 and R.M.Malkani vs. State of

Maharashtra2 to contend that the conviction of the petitioner

on the basis of voice identification test cannot stand as the said

test cannot be given too much credence in the light of the above

Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. A perusal of the evidence before the trial Court

would show that the trial Judge had convicted the petitioner

and the 2nd accused on the ground that the voice identification

test conducted on P.W.1 in the presence of independent

witnesses shows that P.W.1 had clearly identified the voice of

the petitioner and 2nd accused as the persons, who had made

threatening calls to him claiming to be I.P.S Officers, working in

C.B.I. Apart from this ground, the trial Judge had also

convicted the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had

physically visited the clinic of P.W.1 on 17.05.2000 and

collected Rs.20,000/- from P.W.1 in the presence of P.Ws.2 and

P.W.4 whose evidence was not shaken in the cross examination.

9. At the stage of appeal, the appellate Court

considered the fact that Accused No.2 is said to have spoken to

P.W.1 only once on the telephone and the recognition of the

voice of Accused No.2 by P.W.1 after a lapse of about four

months could not be taken to be a safe ground to convict the

Accused No.2. As far as the petitioner was concerned, the

appellate Court had held that the visit of the petitioner to the

clinic of P.W.1 on 17.05.2000 and the acceptance of money by

the petitioner in the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 was sufficient

to uphold the conviction of the petitioner. The appellate Court

(2011) SCC 143

(1973) 1 SCC 471

also observed that once the petitioner is convicted on account of

the incidents of 17.05.2000, the question whether the voice

identification test also needs to be properly authenticated and

the question whether the petitioner could be convicted on the

basis of such voice identification test when the Accused No.2

was acquitted would not be relevant.

10. Coming to the defense of the petitioner that the

petitioner and P.W.1 were previous acquaintances and were

contemplating a partnership for establishing the cold storage,

both the trial Court and the appellate Court did not believe the

version of the petitioner as nothing was elicited from P.W.1 in

relation to the previous acquaintance between the petitioner and

P.W.1. Ex.X.1 and the endorsement in Ex.A.1 stating that

P.W.1 would also be joining as a partner in the cold storage was

also not accepted by the trial Court or the appellate Court on

the ground that the said endorsement said to be under the

signature by an official of the bank below the said endorsement

did not inspire confidence as there were differences between the

signature of the bank official in the endorsement and the

signature of the official at the bottom of the application.

11. I have carefully gone through the evidence recorded

in the trial as well as the submissions made by Sri C.Sharan

Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The conviction of the

petitioner was upheld by the appellate Court on the ground that

the petitioner had physically visited the clinic of P.W.1 and had

received Rs.20,000/- from P.W.1 without any prior

acquaintance. The observation of the appellate Court that the

doubt regarding the voice identification test would not make any

difference in convicting the petitioner, cannot be faulted.

Further, the reasons set out both by the trial Court as well as

the appellate Court in rejecting the defense version based on

Ex.X1 also does not require any interference from this Court as

there are discrepancies between the signatures of the bank

officials at the place of endorsement as well as the signatures at

the bottom of the application. Further, if the bank account was

sought to be opened as a partnership account, the question of

the petitioner, being a practicing advocate, signing an

application as sole proprietor for obtaining the bank account

would not arise.

12. In these circumstances, there is no ground for

interference by this Court in the Judgment of the trial Court or

the appellate Court as far as the petitioner is concerned.

13. Accordingly, the Crl.R.C is dismissed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Date : 27-01-2021 RJS

27.01.2021

RRR,J.

At the stage of pronouncement of judgment, a plea was made

for reduction of the sentence in view of the fact that this revision

case has been pending from almost 20 years and the accused who

is said to be a practicing advocate has been under the threat of

conviction and imprisonment. Keeping these facts in mind, it

would be appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed under

Section 420 of IPC from the period of one year to sox months. The

sentence for conviction under Section 419 of IPC and the sentence

for conviction under Section 420 of IPC shall run concurrently.

The sentence imposed above shall stand reduced to an extent of

earlier imprisonment suffered by the petitioner, if any.

________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Date : 27-01-2021 KA

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Crl.R.C.No.2128 of 2006

Date : 27-01-2021

RJS