Eati Jagadesh, Others, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 48 AP

      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

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

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.

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

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

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

Criminal Revision Case.No.32 of 2007

Dated: 7.01.2021

RPD