Patan Jelani Khan, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 335 AP

                                    1



       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1135 OF 2008

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who is

appellant in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998, on the file of V

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

and accused in C.C.No.194 of 1996, on the file of II Additional

Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District, challenging the

judgment, dated 04.12.2003 of V Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Ongole, whereunder the learned V Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ongole, dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming

the judgment, dated 29.05.1998 in C.C.No.194 of 1996 of II

Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District.

      2)     The   parties   to   this   Criminal   Revision   Case   will

hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the

sake of the convenience.

      3)     The present petitioner faced charge under Section 420

of Indian Penal Code (―I.P.C.‖ for short) in C.C.No.194 of 1996, on

the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District

and he was found guilty and he was convicted and accordingly, he

was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to

pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for
                                  2



three months. Challenging the same, he filed the Criminal Appeal

No.46 of 1998 as above which came to be dismissed on merits.

Challenging the same, he filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

      4)    The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the

averments in the charge sheet in Crime No.99 of 1994 under

Section 420 of I.P.C. of II Town Police Station, Ongole, is as

follows:

      The accused is working as a Messenger in D.T.O. Office

(Telecom Department), Ongole and he used to arrange passports

and visas for those who intend to go to Gulf countries for

employment. It is further alleged that, the accused with dishonest

means of earning more money informed Patan Rasheed Khan

(L.W.2) that his uncle is at Saudi Arabia working as an Engineer in

the Philippines Company and offered for an electrician in Saudi

Arabia and further the accused promised Patan Rasheed Khan

(L.W.2) that he would send him to Saudi and provide Electrician job

at Saudi in his uncle's company and demanded Rs.50,000/- from

Patan Rasheed Khan (L.W.2) for that purpose. Believing the false

and deceitful words of the accused, Patan Rasheed Khan (L.W.2)

gave Rs.47,000/- to the accused in the presence of Patan Mehataj

Begum,     Shaik   Mohiddin   Saheb,   Shaik   Ismail   Baig,   Shaik

Abdulwahab (L.W.1, L.Ws.3 to 5) for providing employment in
                                  3



Saudi Arabia along with some other persons who are also cheated

by the accused.    Patan Rasheed Khan (L.W.2) was sent Saudi

Arabia without any employment there. Patan Rasheed Khan

searched for the address which was given to him by the accused

and found that the address given by the accused is false and Patan

Rasheed Khan suffered a lot at Saudi Arabia and faced lot of

troubles. Even he could not get food everyday and ultimately with

the help of some known persons in Saudi Arabia, he survived and

ultimately sent a letter to his wife narrating all the facts and the

cheating made by the accused.        On receipt of the letter i.e., on

05.08.1994

at 10-00 hours, Patan Mehataj Begum reported the

matter to II Town Police Station, Ongole and the investigating

officer, Station House Officer of Ongole registered the report as a

case in Crime No.99 of 1994 under Section 420 of I.P.C. and

investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, G.

Ramakoteswara Rao (L.W.7), Station House Officer, arrested the

accused and produced before the Court for remand and examined

Patan Mehataj Begum, Patan Rasheed Khan, Shaik Mohiddin Saheb,

Shaik Ismail Baig, Shaik Abdul Waheb (L.Ws.1 to 5) and recorded

their statements. Hence, the charge sheet.

5) The learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole,

took the case on file under Section 420 of I.P.C. and issued process

for appearance of the accused. On appearance of the accused and

after furnishing copies of documents under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code (―Cr.P.C.‖ for short), examined the accused under

Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. was

framed and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, in order to prove the guilt

against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got

marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. Accused got marked Exs.D.1 and D.2

during the cross examination of P.Ws.3 and 4. After closure of the

evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances in the

evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which he denied the

same. He stated in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination a version and it is

quite necessary to extract here the version made by the accused,

as it can be used in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the

accused:

―Since 5 or 6 years I have been working in Telagraph Office. If we do not know the address mentioned in the Telegrams, we go to Post Office and enquire there. Thus, when I went to enquire in Lawyerpet Post Office, I got acquaintance with one Shaik Mastan, who is working as permanent Messenger there. During our conversations, the said Shaik Mastan told me that his son by name Shaik Meeravali is working in Saudi. Later, Meeravali returned to

India from Saudi. Shaik Mastan introduced his son Shaik Meeravali to me. After his introduction to me, one day Shaik Meeravali came to me along with Pathan Rasheed Khan, Shaik Mehaboob Basha and Grandhi Sudhakar and informed that after his going to Saudi, he will arrange visas to those three persons. He requested me to help him to send those three persons to Saudi. Within three months thereafter, Shaik Meeravali went to Saudi Arabia. He arranged visa to Rasheed Khan. All the three persons got one visa. They came to me along with visa papers, Bombay Servicing Papers and dresses with a request to accompany them to Bombay. I told them that I don't come. Then, they telephoned Meeravali, who obliged me to accompany them till Bombay. Accordingly, we went to Bombay on 13.06.1994. Pathan Rasheed Khan, Shaik Mahaboob Basha and Grandhi Sudhakar underwent the required medical examinations at Sandip Medicals and the medical certificates were issued to them. On 29.06.1994, their tickets to fly to Bahrain were confirmed. Due to the persistent demand of those persons, we took a photograph at Bombay. As Grandhi Sudhakar proceeded to his relatives house at Bombay, he was not there in the photo. Thereafter, I returned to Ongole and got myself engaged in my routine activities. After 15 days of their flying to Saudi, MLA - Adenna along with one Rowdy sheeter came to him saying Rasheed addressed a letter to them stating that I am responsible for his problems. I informed them that I am not responsible for that. Later, they went away. The next day i.e., on 05.08.1994 morning at 09:00 a.m. when I am going to attend my duty, Police enquired me. They informed me to come to the Police Station and meet S.I. Accordingly, I went to the Police Station. There the Police enquired me as I have sent Rasheed to Dubai. When I informed them that I do not know anything, they took me to the Court and booked an illegal case against me. I informed this to Grandhi Sudhakar by phone, then he sent me some papers to me. The papers sent by

Grandhi Sudhakar were given to me by his father. When I have shown the papers sent by Grandhi Sudhakar through his father to the S.I., he did not accept those papers. I am not at all concerned with this case.‖

7) The learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, on

hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as the

documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the charge

under Section 420 of I.P.C. and convicted him under Section 248

(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of

sentence, sentenced him as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, he

filed Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998, which came to be dismissed on

merits. Challenging the same, he filed the present Criminal

Revision Case.

8) Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case,

the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the

judgment, dated 04.12.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998, on

the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track

Court), Ongle, suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety

and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?

Point:-

9) Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, would contend that to establish an offence of cheating

under Section 420 of I.P.C., the prosecution should have been in a

position to prove that at the time of the so-called inducement,

accused was with dishonest intention to cheat P.W.1 and the

essential ingredients of cheating are lacking in the present case on

hand.

10) Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the

judgment of the Jamu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in

Ghulam Mohammad Naikoo vs. Abdul Qayoom Wani in CRMC

No.107 of 2017 decided on 18.07.2022 relying upon the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would further rely

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hridaya

Ranjan Prasad Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and

another [(2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 168] to contend that

there should have been a dishonest intention which has to be

proved by the prosecution from the beginning at the time of so-

called inducement to prove the offence of cheating.

11) Relying upon the above two judgments, the learned

counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the evidence

adduced by the prosecution would not establish the essential

ingredients of cheating. Except oral version of P.Ws.1 to 4, there

remains nothing to prove that P.W.1 parted with an amount of

Rs.47,000/- to accused hoping that accused would provide a job to

him at Saudi Arabia. No piece of paper is filed by the prosecution to

prove the same. Both the Courts below did not consider the

defence of the accused that the contract between the petitioner

(accused) and P.W.2 is that P.W.2 had to be sent to Gulf countries,

for which P.W.2 had to meet the expenditure and it was acted

upon, as such, there was no criminal intention to attract Section

420 of I.P.C. P.Ws.1 to 4 are the interested witnesses and no

credence can be given to such evidence. The prosecution did not

prove any written agreement between the petitioner and P.W.2

leave apart from the proof regarding so-called payment of

Rs.47,000/- to the accused by P.W.2. Both the Courts below failed

to appreciate the evidence in a proper way and went on to convict

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

allowed.

12) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing

the learned Public Prosecutor, sought to support the judgments of

both the Courts below by contending that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to

4 is consistent. Their oral evidence is cogent to prove that P.W.2

paid a sum of Rs.47,000/- to the accused, as accused promised to

P.W.2 to provide job at Saudi Arabia. The dishonest intention of

the accused is quietly evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 as

well as Ex.P.1 complaint lodged by P.W.1 and Ex.P.2-the letter

addressed by P.W.2 from Saudi Arabia to P.W.1. Both the Courts

below rightly appreciated the evidence on record, as such, the

Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

13) This Court has gone through Section 420 of I.P.C.

Section 420 of I.P.C. provides the offence of cheating. It runs as

follows:

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

14) What is cheating is defined in Section 415 of I.P.C. It

runs as follows:

415. Cheating.--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‖.

Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

15) Having gone through the definition of cheating under

Section 415 of I.P.C. and the offence of cheating under Section 420

of I.P.C. and further looking into the decisions cited by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that to constitute the offence of

cheating under Section 420 of I.P.C., there must be a fraudulent or

dishonest intention on the part of the person to induce the other

party to part with amount or property. So, what the prosecution

was supposed to establish is that accused made a false promise to

P.W.2 with a dishonest intention and made P.W.2 to believe that

accused would provide a job at Saudi Arabia and believing the

inducement made by the accused, P.W.2 parted with amount and if

such inducement is not there, he would not have parted with the

amount and that accused did not provide any job as promised. If

the evidence on record proves the above said aspect, definitely, it

would attract the offence of cheating. Keeping in view, the

evidence is to be appreciated.

16) Here, P.W.1 is the wife of P.W.2. P.W.2 is the victim in

fact. The basis for P.W.1 to lodge Ex.P.1 complaint is Ex.P.2 letter

received by her from P.W.2 from Saudi Arabia. Prosecution

examined P.Ws.3 and 4 further in whose presence P.W.2 paid the

so-called amount of Rs.47,000/- to the accused.

17) Now, turning to the testimony of P.W.1, she deposed

that the accused is working in Telegraph department in Ongole.

Her husband is a private electrician. About four years ago, her

husband went to Saudi Arabia to secure job as an electrician at the

instance of accused. Accused intimated to her husband that there is

a job to her husband at Saudi Arabia in a company, for which he

has to pay Rs.47,000/-. Her husband believed the words of the

accused and paid the said amount. Accused gave visa to her

husband to Saudi Arabia. He accompanied her husband up to

Bombay and from there her husband went to Saudi Arabia by Air.

Subsequently, she was told by her husband that the visa given to

him is only a tour visa and there is no job in the company told by

the accused and that he had no job and he cannot return to India.

He also addressed a letter to her. Later, with the help of some

persons at Saudi Arabia, her husband returned to India. After

receiving information from her husband, she questioned the

accused about his act and then he replied that he is not concerned

about the job, etc. and his job ends by sending her husband to

Saudi Arabia. He also told to her that her husband did not work

there. Then, she gave report to police. Ex.P.1 is the report and

Ex.P.2 is the letter received by her along with postal cover.

18) P.W.2 is no other than the victim i.e., the husband of

P.W.1 and his evidence in substance is that he is a private

electrician. He got acquaintance with the accused, who is a

Messenger in Telegraphic Office. Accused induced him that he will

get good income, if he go to Saudi Arabia and if he is able to spend

Rs.47,000/-, he will send him to Saudi Arabia for a job. Believing

the words of the accused, he (P.W.2), his father-in-law Mohiddin,

Ismail Baig and Vahab went to the house of the accused with

Rs.47,000/- in order to pay the same to him for getting a job in

Saudi Arabia. On 15.06.1994 accused took him, his father-in-law

and other persons to Bombay to send him to Saudi Arabia. They

took a photograph along with the accused which is Ex.P.3. Ex.P.4 is

the negative. Ex.P.5 is cover which was given along with the photo

and negative by the photo studio people. He, accused and third

person were also brought by the accused to send to Saudi Arabia.

Ex.P.3 photograph was taken at Bombay. He started from Bombay

to Alhasa (Saudi Arabia). Accused induced him and made him to

believe that his father-in-law and his friends were in Saudi Arabia at

Alhasa and they will look after job as an electrician. Ex.P.6 is the

ticket issued by Air India to go to Dhahran Airport. From there he

proceeded to Alhasa. Ex.P.7 is the Passport issued to him. One

Meeravalli received him at Dhahran Airport and took him to his

room. He was there for four days. Later, he was taken to one

Kapil. Later, he did not find Meeravalli. Kapil told him that there is

no job for him. He forced him to work in the fields as a labour.

Later, with the help of one Allabakshu, he returned back to India.

He also addressed Ex.P.2 explaining the position. Ex.P.8 is the

counter-foil of the return ticket. He would not have gone to Saudi

Arabia, if the accused did not induce him regarding employment.

Thus, he was cheated by the accused.

19) P.W.3 is father of P.W.1 and father-in-law of P.W.2,

who spoken about the so-called inducement made to P.W.2 by the

accused and further the payment of Rs.47,000/- to the accused in

his presence by P.W.2. Similar is the evidence of P.W.4, who

testified that P.W.2 told him that he is going to Gulf with the help of

accused and about four years ago, he (P.W.4), P.W.2 and two

others went to the house of accused and to pay Rs.47,000/- and he

paid the amount to the accused for securing employment, etc.

P.W.5 is the investigating officer.

20) On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, this

Court would like to make it clear that literally the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 4 is such that accused made a promise to P.W.2 to

provide a job at Saudi Arabia, if he is able to spend Rs.47,000/- to

him and believing the representation of the accused, P.W.2 paid the

amount to the accused. Admittedly, as evident from the defence of

the accused i.e, from cross examination part, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not

obtain any receipt whatsoever from the accused in token of the

receipt of Rs.47,000/-, but the fact that prosecution party did not

get any receipt from the accused, does not enable this Court to

thrown out the case of prosecution. Prosecution sought to prove

the guilt of the accused basing on the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4

as well as Exs.P.1 to P.9. In judging the guilt against the accused,

the defence of the accused is to be looked into by looking into the

cross examination part.

21) Now, turning to the cross examination part of P.W.1,

she deposed that she knows one Shaik Meeravalli, who is residing

in their locality. She does not know whether he used to bring Visas

and Passports for the persons who are intending to go to Saudi

Arabia. They paid the amount to the accused at their house. She

handed over a copy of Ex.P.2 to the police. She does not know

whether the accused bore the medical and other expenses for

sending P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia. She denied that one Meeravalli who

is their neighbor brought Visa to her husband. She denied that

they asked the advice of the accused prior to leaving of her

husband to Saudi Arabia and as the accused gave advice, they filed

a false case. She does not know whether her husband entered into

agreement with one Abdul Rahaman Almonsur to work under him

for 600 riyals and whether her husband cancelled his agreement

with the said Almonsur and entered into another agreement with

another person for higher salary. She denied that she is deposing

false.

22) The accused put forth a version before P.W.1 during the

cross examination as to whether she had knowledge that accused

bore the medical and other expenses for sending her husband to

Saudi Arabia. It is to be noticed that if the accused is of such a

person, who was concerned with a job as a Messenger in the

Telegraph Department, he had no business to make arrangements

for P.W.2 to bore the medical and other expenses by himself for

sending P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia. Virtually, it is not as though accused

has nothing to do with the issue of sending P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia.

23) Now, coming to the cross examination part of P.W.2,

who is the crucial witness to the case of the prosecution, he

deposed that he got acquaintance with the accused two months

prior to his leaving to Saudi Arabia. He denied that he entered into

agreement with one Abdul Rahaman Almonsur to work under him

for 600 riyals. He volunteers that immediately after boarding at

Dhahran Meeravalli obtained his signatures on some papers and he

does not know for what he obtained those signatures. He took

signatures on a paper of which some matter was written in Arabic

and English. He denied that Shaik Meeravalli is his close relative

and he used to send people to Saudi Arabia and other countries and

that he will look after the visas, etc.

24) Accused got elicited from the mouth of P.W.3 in cross

examination that he does not remember whether he stated to police

that one Meeravalli used to bring Passports, Visas to the persons

who are intending to go to Saudi Arabia and that he used to hand

over the said Passports and Visas to the accused and used to collect

the amounts through the accused.

25) Accused got elicited from P.W.5, the investigating

officer, during the cross examination that previously accused sent

some persons to Middle East. He further got elicited that P.W.3

stated before him that Meeravalli gave Visas and Passports to Patan

Jilani Khan (accused) and asked him to collect them from Jilani

Khan and that P.W.3 stated before him that Meeravalli used to

collect money through the accused. So, these answers that are

elicited from the cross examination of P.Ws.3 and 5 goes to prove

that Meeravalli used to collect the amounts from the accused as per

statement of P.W.3 before the investigating officer.

26) Now, it is pertinent to look into the fact that the

photograph under Ex.P.3 was not denied by the accused. So,

accused, P.W.2 and others were photographed at Bombay. During

the course of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination, accused

presented a categorical version that he accompanied P.W.2 and

others to Bombay. The version of the accused in Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. examination is self-explanatory. If the accused was not

concerned with P.W.2's going to Saudi Arabia, he had no business

to accompany P.W.2 to Bombay up to the Airport. The admissions

made by the accused in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination can be

looked into. So, the fact remained is that the accused accompanied

P.W.2 and others to Bombay Airport.

27) It is crucial to look into the fact that a contention was

advanced by the learned counsel for the accused before the trial

Court that Meeravalli actually received the amount from the

accused and that the said person was not examined. This

contention is in tune with the statement of P.W.3 before the

investigating officer. It is to be noticed that even in the grounds of

Revision, the contention of the petitioner is that the contract

between him and P.W.2 was only to send him to Saudi Arabia and

the movement, P.W.2 was sent to Saudi Arabia, there remains

nothing on the part of the petitioner. It is to be noticed that

according to Ex.P.6, the ticket issued by Air India to P.W.2 to go to

Saudi Arabia, it costs about Rs.11,705/- inclusive of all taxes. This

Court has no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. The

accused virtually admitted by virtue of his defence before the

prosecution witnesses and by virtue of his contention before the

trial Court and by virtue of the grounds of Revision that he received

certain amount. According to P.Ws.1 to 4, it was Rs.47,000/-.

Now, it is for the accused to explain how he was supposed to

receive the amount when he was working as a Messenger so as to

facilitate to sending of P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia.

28) As seen from Ex.P.2, the letter addressed by P.W.2 to

P.W.1, P.W.2 alleged that accused cheated him with a false

promise. He also alleged that Meeravalli at Saudi Arabia was also

cheated him. Unfortunately, the investigating officer did not look

into the role of the said Meeravalli. However, the fact remained is

that it is the accused to handle the issue at India in sending P.W.2

to Saudi Arabia. If his duty was only sent to P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia

and he had nothing to do with the job, he would not have received

an amount of Rs.47,000/-. The amount of Rs.47,000/-, in my

considered view, was not exclusively meant for travelling and Visa

expenses. Even after excluding the traveling expenses of

Rs.11,705/-and Visa expenses if any, there would be substantial

amount with the accused, for which the accused did not explain as

to what purpose it was meant for.

29) Coming to Exs.D.1 and D.2 marked during the course of

cross examination of P.Ws.3 and 4, Ex.D.1 is to the effect that

Meeravalli told to him that he brought Visa and handed over to

accused. Ex.D.2 is to the effect that on 19.06.1994 during night,

the amount was given to the accused.

30) In this regard, this Court would like to make it clear

that Exs.D.1 and D.2 are not confronted with P.W.5, the

investigating officer. P.Ws.3 and 4 during the cross examination

stated that they did not state to police as in Exs.D.1 and D.2

respectively. So, as those are not put to P.W.5 during cross

examination to prove that P.Ws.3 and 4 stated before him as in

Exs.D.1 and D.2, they cannot be considered.

31) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances,

this Court is of the considered view that the evidence on record

amply proves the fact that accused with a dishonest intention

induced P.W.2 to part with a sum of Rs.47,000/- on the pretext of

providing employment at Saudi Arabia and believing the same,

P.W.2 paid that amount and accused did not keep up his promise.

Accused suggested to P.W.1 during the cross examination that her

husband did not work at Saudi Arabia. He also got negative

answers from P.W.2 during cross examination as if he entered into

agreement with somebody and failed to work there. How accused

had knowledge of all these facts which were said to be happened at

Saudi Arabia, is not explained by him. In my considered view, the

evidence adduced by the prosecution is convincing and prosecution

established the essential ingredients of cheating with consistent

evidence. Both the Courts below broadly looked into the evidence

and arrived at a just conclusion. The judgments of both the Courts

below show that they considered the evidence on record i.e., oral

as well as documentary. With the evidence available on record, no

further conclusions could be possible other than a conclusion that

the prosecution established the guilt against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt.

32) Hence, I see no reason to set aside the judgment of the

learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),

Ongole, in dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998. However,

it is also the contention of the petitioner that the sentence imposed

against the petitioner is excessive. This Court has duly looked into

the same. Admittedly, the petitioner was aged about 31 years at

the time of conviction in C.C.No.194 of 1996. Later, he filed

Criminal Appeal before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court), Ongole and the Criminal Revision Case before

this Court. The Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioner is

pending about 14 years. Now the petitioner (accused) must have in

the age group of 58 to 60.

33) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I

feel that the ends of justice will meet, if the sentence is modified by

reducing the same to 06 (six) months instead of one year.

34) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in

part modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the

petitioner as that of 06 (six) months as against one year and the

rest of the judgment of the learned V Additional District and

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole, dated 04.12.2003 in

Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998, shall stands confirmed.

35) 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 and to report compliance to this Court.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 25.01.2023.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

CRL. REVISION CASE NO.1135 OF 2008

Date: 25.01.2023

PGR