Maddala Dhanalakshmi , vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 8771 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1673 OF 2008

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed under Sections

397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short,

„the Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner herein, who was the appellant in

Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2006, on the file of the Court of XI

Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur

at Tenali (for short, „the learned Additional Sessions Judge‟),

challenging the judgment, dated 14.11.2008; where under the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, allowed the Criminal Appeal in

part, filed by the petitioner, setting aside the conviction imposed

against the petitioner for the offence under Section 419 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „the IPC‟) while confirming the

conviction imposed under Section 420 IPC by the learned First

Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali (for short, „the trial Court‟) in

C.C. No.158 of 2005, dated 07.08.2006. The petitioner faced trial

in C.C. No.158 of 2005 on the file of the Court of First Additional

Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. The learned Magistrate found the

petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 419 as well as 420

IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced her to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence

under Section 419 IPC and sentenced her to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in

default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence

under Section 420 IPC. Felt aggrieved of the same, the petitioner

filed Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2006 on the file of the Court of XI

Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur

at Tenali and the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the

Criminal Appeal in part, as above. Aggrieved of the same, the

petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be

referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of

convenience.

3. The State represented by Station House Officer, Tenali II

Town Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.36 of 2005 for

the offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC alleging in substance

that the accused is a housewife and resident of Lecturers Colony,

Tenali. On 28.03.2005 at about 08:00 P.M, she entered into the

shop of LW.1-Chimakurthy Ramachandra Rao and introduced

herself that she is the Vigilance Officer from Hyderabad and

wanted to check the stocks and records of his shop. She

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

demanded him to give some items at free of cost saying that she

would leave the shop without checking else she would call for

office squad by phone and will arrest him by issuing Non Bailable

Warrant. Then, LW.1 gave the goods demanded by her from his

shop. At that time, LW.2-Grandhi Chandramouleeswara Rao, went

to the shop of LW.1 and learnt about the version of the accused

from LW.1 and questioned her about her particulars. The accused

told her name, husband name and caste and abruptly went away

from the shop of LW.1 by taking the items along with her, without

paying for the same. So, LW.1 suspecting the behaviour of the

accused telephoned to the Police. By the time the Police went to

the shop of LW.1, accused went to Sri Rameswaraswamy temple

and informed LW.6-Nagabhairava Saibabu, Executive Officer, that

she is Vigilance Officer and asked him to arrange for pooja. LW.6

believed the version of the accused and arranged for pooja.

Accused also went to the shop of LW.3-Kaminahalli Ramaswami

Aiyangar Janardhan and demanded for some bakery items to her

for free of cost, after informing him that she is the Vigilance

Officer. In the meantime, LW.7-S.V. Rajasekhar Reddy, Sub-

Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Tenali after receipt of

information from LW.1 went to the shop of LW.1 and on his

information, took the accused into his custody at the shop of

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

LW.3. On the same day at 10:00 P.M, LW.1 appeared in Police

Station and presented the report. LW.7, the Sub-Inspector of

Police registered the aforesaid Crime on receiving report from LW.1

and, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4. The learned Magistrate took the case on file for the offences

under Sections 419 and 420 IPC and, after appearance of the

accused and after completing the formalities under Section 207

Cr.P.C., subjected her to examination under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

She denied the allegations in the case of the prosecution. The

learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner under

Sections 419 and 420 IPC, read over and explained to her in

Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, to prove

the guilt of the accused, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to

P-9 and MOs.1 to 5 were marked. After closure of the evidence of

the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C and denied the incriminating circumstances and reported

no evidence.

6. On hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as

documentary evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

accused guilty of the charges under Sections 419 and 420 IPC and

after questioning her about the quantum of sentence, sentenced

her as above.

7. Aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused filed

Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2006 before the appellate Court and the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and after

considering the material available on record, allowed the Appeal in

part setting aside the conviction under Section 419 IPC but

confirming the conviction under Section 420 IPC.

8. Further aggrieved of the same, unsuccessful appellant in the

Criminal Appeal filed the instant Criminal Revision Case

challenging the judgment of the appellate Court.

9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that

arises for consideration is whether the judgment, dated

14.11.2008, in Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2006, passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers with any illegality,

irregularity and impropriety and whether it is sustainable under

law and facts?

10. Sri M.S.P. Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Challa

Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

that the learned trial Judge convicted the petitioner under

Sections 419 and 420 IPC without there being any evidence and

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, allowed the Appeal in part

only and confirmed the conviction and judgment of the trial Judge

which is illegal. The Courts below relied upon the evidence of

PW.7, who is the Investigating Officer. The prosecution failed to

establish the ingredients of the offences alleged against the

petitioner. The evidence of PW.7 has no support from independent

sources. The evidence of PW.7 is interesting in nature and other

witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The trial

Court instead of acquitting but convicted the petitioner. PWs.2 to

6 turned hostile and PW.1 failed to identify the accused. Hence,

the judgments of the Courts below are not sustainable under law

and facts as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be

allowed.

11. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing

learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that though some of the

prosecution witnesses turned hostile but they supported the case

of the prosecution to the extent that one lady claiming to be the

Vigilance Officer unlawfully obtained items from the shops of PW.1

as well as other shops and it is a case where the accused was

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

caught hold red-handedly by the Investigating Officer and the

evidence of the Investigation Officer is consistent and believable

and there is cogent evidence adduced before the trial Court by the

prosecution to prove the guilt and there are no merits in the

Revision, as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be

dismissed.

12. The substance of the case of the prosecution is that the

petitioner went to the shop of PW.1 by introducing herself as the

Vigilance Officer and expressed her intention to check the registers

and stock and further demanded to part with some items so that

she would not check the registers and stock as such she would let

off the PW.1 and then PW.1 entertained a suspicion and

telephoned to the Police and in the meantime the accused visited

several shops and ultimately the Police came there and caught

hold of her red-handedly.

13. For better appreciation, it is pertinent to look into Ex.P-1-

report lodged by the PW.1 which reads in substance that he is

running Vinayaka Metals Shop for the last three years and on

28.03.2005 evening at 08:00 P.M one female person came there

styling herself as Vigilance Officer from Hyderabad and that she

wanted to verify the books of accounts for which he agreed and

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

asked her to show the identify and then she told that she is on

leave and she needs some items at free of cost and if it is done,

she would leave otherwise the office squad would come and arrest

him. In the meantime, one Grandhi Chandramouleeswari (LW.2)

came there and he intimated the same to him. He questioned her

and then she revealed her name as Maddala Dhanalakshmi,

W/o.Venkateswara Rao and took away the articles worth Rs.200/-

and he revealed the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police. The Sub-

Inspector of Police came there and took the accused into his

custody. This is the substance of the case of the prosecution.

14. Coming to the evidence of PW.1, who is maker of Ex.P-1

report, he deposed to the effect that on 28.03.2005 at about 09:00

P.M one lady came there stating that she is Vigilance Officer from

Hyderabad and asked him to produce account books and cash

before her. He asked her to produce the identity card then she

stated that she is on leave and she did not bring identity card and

that she needs some articles from his shop and if he gives them

she will not inspect the shop and will leave him. Then he gave 4

articles to her worth Rs.200/-. She did not disclose her name.

LW.2-Grandhi Chandramouleeswara Rao came to the shop then.

LW.2 enquired her name and she stated that her name but he

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

does not remember her name. She took the articles and went away

from the shop. Then he followed her. She went to Sivalayam. After

she went into the temple, Executive Officer of the Temple told him

that the lady threatened him by saying that she is a Vigilance

Officer. Again he followed her. She went to Bakery where she

threatened the shop owner saying that she is the Vigilance Officer.

The shop owners and surrounding people came there and

telephoned to the Police. Then the Police took the accused to the

Police Station. Later, other persons went to Police Station. He gave

report to Police. Ex.P-1 is the said report. Police examined him and

recorded his statement. He does not know the accused because he

never saw her at any time. The prosecution sought to cross-

examine him in respect of the identity of the accused and during

the cross-examination he deposed that he does not remember

whether he stated before the Police the name of the accused. He

denied that he stated as in Ex.P-2 (161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1).

15. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, he knows PW.1. He does

not remember whether he saw the accused or not. In the month of

March, 2005 at 07:00 or 08:00 P.M, he went to the shop of PW.1

to purchase goods. Then PW.1 asked him by showing one lady,

whether he knows her as Vigilance Officer. He stated that he does

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

not know. Then he (PW.2) asked her about her details but she

could not give the details and stated that she came to the shop to

purchase and has taken some articles from the shop of PW.1 but

he does not know whether she purchased or not. Later, she went

away and along with her PW.1 followed. He came to know that the

Police took her to the Police Station. Prosecution sought

permission of the trial Court to cross-examine him as he did not

speak the identity and during the course of cross-examination, he

denied that she stated before Police as in Ex.P-3 (161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.2).

16. PW.3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution totally

and he does not know about the case filed against the accused.

Accused never visited his shop. During cross-examination by the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Ex.P-4 (161 Cr.P.C. statement

of PW.3) was marked.

17. PW.4 was the Executive Officer of Sri Rameswaraswamy

Temple in Gangannammapet, Tenali. According to him, on

23.08.2005 at 08:30 P.M he was in the office of the temple. One

lady who is aged about 42 to 45 years came to him and stated that

she is from Vigilance Department and wanted to perform pooja.

Then he told her that the temple was closed but she insisted that

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

she has to perform pooja. He stated that as he saw the said lady

about one year ago, he cannot identify whether the accused is

above lady or not. Prosecution cross-examined him as regards the

identity and during cross-examination he denied that he stated as

in Ex.P-5 (161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4).

18. Turning to the testimony of PW.5, about 5 or 6 months ago,

he was called by owners of the shop beside his shop, who informed

him that somebody came and took away the articles from the

shop. He does not know the details. He did not see who came to

the shop and he never saw the accused. The prosecution cross-

examined PW.5 and during the cross-examination, he denied that

he stated to police as in Ex.P-6 (161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5)

19. PW.6 totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

According to him, he never saw the accused. During the course of

cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he

denied that he stated before Police as in Ex.P-7 (161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.6).

20. Coming to the evidence of PW.7-the Investigating Officer, on

28.03.2005 at about 09:15 P.M, he received a call from PW.1

informing that one lady claiming herself as Vigilance Officer

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

demanded goods from his shop. Then he left the Police Station and

went to the shop of PW.1. He enquired about the phone call and

the lady. PW.1 informed him that she went to the shop of PW.6.

Then he went to that shop along with PW.1 and found the accused

in that shop. She is in possession of cell phone and some other

luggage. He asked her about her identity and she informed him

that she is a Vigilance Officer working at Guntur. He asked for her

identity card and she failed to produce the same and she informed

that she did not bring it. On suspicion, he took her to the Police

Station. At about 10:00 P.M, he kept under surveillance. In the

meantime, PW.1 along with PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 6 came to the Police

Station and PW.1 presented the report under Ex.P-1 and he

registered it as a case in Crime No.36 of 2005 for the offences

under Sections 419 and 420 IPC and issued F.I.R. Ex.P-5 is the

F.I.R. He examined PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 6 during investigation, who

stated before him as in Exs.P-2 to P-5. He further deposed that he

interrogated the accused about her identity particulars and she

admitted that she is a housewife and not the Vigilance Officer and

her husband is working at C.T.O office at Vijayawada. He then

arrested the accused at 11:45 P.M. He seized cell phone and other

stolen articles which were collected from the shop of PW.1, which

are MOs.2 to 5. He visited the shop of PW.1 on 29.03.2005,

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

drafted rough sketch, Ex.P-9. He examined PW.4 and recorded his

statement, who deposed as in Ex.P-5. After completion of

investigation, he filed charge sheet. During cross-examination, he

deposed that he and another woman P.C. went to the shop of

PW.1. It is a busy locality. He did not examine the purohith, who

performed the pooja. He denied that he foisted a false case.

21. It is no doubt true that PW.1, for obvious reasons, did not

specify the identity particulars of the accused and he did not

identify the accused. There is no dispute that PW.1 lodged Ex.P-1,

which discloses the name of the accused. So, it is crystal clear that

though PW.1 supported the case of the prosecution to some extent

but he deliberately omitted to identify the accused. Similar is the

situation in respect of the evidence of PW.2. PW.3 totally turned

hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.4 supported the case of

the prosecution to some extent and did not identify the accused.

PW.5 did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.6 did not

support the case of the prosecution. It is well settled that simply

because some of the witnesses turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution, case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. It is

well settled legal position that even the evidence of the hostile

witnesses to the extent they supported the case of the prosecution

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

can be relied upon. So, a look at the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3

goes to reveal that in the month of March, 2005, one woman

claiming to be a Vigilance Officer visited the shop of PW.1 and it

was witnessed by PW.2 and she also visited the Temple, where

PW.4 was working as Executive Officer. So, the evidence of PWs.1,

2 and 4 can be considered to that extent. Apart from that, if the

evidence of PW.7, Investigating Officer is trustworthy, it can be

relied upon. Now, the fact remained is that it is a case where

according to the case of the prosecution and according to the

evidence of PW.7, the Investigating Officer, accused visited the

shop of PW.1 claiming to be a Vigilance Officer and wanted to

verify the registers and stocks and later she put forth a condition

to part with certain items and that she would not check the shop.

Insofar as the identity aspect is concerned, the evidence available

on record is that of PW.7. Even according to PW.1, he telephoned

to the Police about the act of so called woman claiming to be the

Vigilance Officer. It is the specific evidence of PW.1 that he

followed her to several shops and in the meantime Police came

there and took her into custody and later he lodged Ex.P-1 report.

So the evidence on record goes to show that on receiving a phone

call from PW.1, PW.7 proceeded to the shop of PW.1 and by then

PW.1 left the shop following the woman and ultimately she visited

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

several places and it was witnessed by PW.1 and then Police came

there acting upon the phone call of PW.1 and took her into

custody. So, insofar as the identity aspect is concerned, there is a

categorical evidence of PW.7, Investigating Officer. Insofar as the

act of the accused is concerned, there is categorical evidence of

PWs.1, 2 and 4. The accused did not dispute the incident that was

happened at the shop of PW.1, which was witnessed by PW.2 and

at the temple of PW.4. In other words, accused did not dispute the

fact that one woman claiming to be the Vigilance Officer went to

the shop of PW.1 and demanded PW.1 to part with certain items

etc., Though PWs.1, 2 and 4 did not testify the identity aspects of

the accused, for obvious reasons, which are within their

knowledge but there is a categorical link in the evidence to prove

that acting upon the phone call of PW.1, PW.7, the Investigating

Officer rushed there and caught hold of the accused. Now, coming

to the cross-examination of PW.7, there remains nothing to

disbelieve his evidence. When it is the evidence of PW.7 that he

took into custody of the accused and thoroughly interrogated her

and, in the meantime, PW.1 came to the Police and presented

Ex.P-1 report, no contra version is suggested to PW.1 during

cross-examination.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

22. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view

that insofar as the appreciation of the evidence is concerned, the

learned Magistrate appreciated the evidence in proper perspective.

A look at the judgment of the appellate Court reveals that the

learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly looked into the evidence

on record and rightly appreciated the same. It is to be noticed that

Section 415 IPC defines as to what is cheating. It contemplates

whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly

induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any

person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or

intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do

anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived,

and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or

harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said

to "cheat".

23. Here coming to the case of the prosecution, the evidence on

record goes to prove that the accused claimed that she is the

Vigilance Officer and dishonestly induced PW.1 to part with

certain items from his shop and PW.1 believing the inducement

parted with certain items to the accused. So, it is a clear case of

cheating contemplated under Section 420 IPC. Though the learned

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

trial Judge recorded conviction under Sections 419 and 420 IPC,

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, set-aside the conviction

under Section 419 IPC for which there is no Revision before this

Court. So, the scope of this Court before the Revision is very

limited as to whether the evidence on record prove the offence of

cheating under Section 415 IPC punishable under Section 420

IPC.

24. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view

that the prosecution before the trial Court was able to establish

the charge under Section 420 IPC against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt and the learned Additional Sessions Judge

rightly confirmed the same. Hence, I hold that the judgment in

Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2006, on the file of the Court of XI

Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur

at Tenali, is sustainable under law and facts and there are no

grounds to interfere with the same.

25. Coming to the quantum of sentence, the learned Magistrate

took a lenient view and let off the petitioner with Simple

Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in

default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence

under Section 420 IPC. As the sentence imposed against the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1673/2008

petitioner is not at all harsh and it is lenient, I see no grounds to

interfere with the sentence.

26. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The

Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388

Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the trial Court and

on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to

carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner/appellant in

C.C. No.158 of 2005, dated 07.08.2006, and to report compliance

to this Court.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date :16.11.2022 DSH