B.Venkata Raju Died Rep By B.Surya ... vs Kantheti Ramakrishnaraju And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4637 Tel

        THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

             CRL.R.C.Nos. 1701 and 1708 of 2007

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      Since both these Criminal Revision Cases are directed

against the common judgment of the learned VI-Additional

Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Crl.A.Nos.81 and 89 of

2002, dated 19.06.2006, whereby the learned Judge, set aside

the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused

Nos.1 to 4 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet, vide it's judgment, dated 29.06.2002, in C.C.No.24

of 1998, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

      For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter

be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

      Brief facts of the case are that P.W.1 is the owner of the

land admeasuring Ac.9.25 gts., in Sy.No.154 situated at

Ainapur Village and he had entrusted the said land to A-1 to

look after the same, but A-1 sold it to A-2 by forging the

signature of P.W.1 and executed a registered sale deed and

that A-3 and A-4 attested the said sale deed. Hence, P.W.1

lodged the complaint before the police, basing on which, a case

in Crime No.18 of 1995 was registered against A-1 to A-4 for

the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 419 and 420 of
                                2


I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, the police filed a

charge sheet against them.

      On appearance of the accused, a charge under Section

468 of I.P.C. was framed against A-1, a charge under Section

471 of I.P.C. was framed against A-2 and a charge under

Section 468 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. was framed against

A-3 and A-4. The plea of the accused before the trial Court is

one of total denial.


      In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the

accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D1 and D-2

were marked.


      After considering the rival submissions made by the

prosecution as well as the accused and on a perusal of the

entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court,

convicted A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 468 of

I.P.C., A-2 for the offence punishable under Section 471 of

I.P.C.; and A-3 and A-4 for the offence punishable under

Section 468 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. and all of them were

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one

year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to suffer

simple imprisonment for one month.
                                      3


          In the appeals preferred by the accused, the learned VI-

Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, set aside the

conviction and sentence imposed against A-1 to A-4 and they

are acquitted for the offences with which they are charged.

Aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of P.W.1

(B.Venkata Raju), preferred both these criminal revisions.


          Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner

and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

perused the record.


          A perusal of the impugned common judgment would

show that relying upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh

High Court in The Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports,

Hyderabad v. Boddula Mallesham1, the appellate Court held

that the evidence of P.W.9/Hand Writing Expert is not helpful

to the case of prosecution since the specimen signatures of the

accused were not taken in the presence of the Court. The

appellate Court further held that in Exs.D1 and D2, which are

the portions of statement of P.W.6/Mandal Revenue Officer

recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there are

material contradictions with regard to his obtaining specimen

signatures of the accused. However, non-examination of the


1
    (1997) 1 ALT (Crl.) 719 (A.P.)
                                4


Investigating Officer by the prosecution to prove the said

material contractions in Exs.D1 and D2, is fatal to the case of

prosecution. Therefore, on reappraisal of entire evidence, the

appellate Court has given a categorical finding that the learned

trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against

them and accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence

imposed against A-1 to A-4 by treating the same as illegal and

unsustainable in law. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not

find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of

the appellate Court. Both the Criminal Revision Cases lack

merit and they are liable to be dismissed.

     Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are

dismissed, confirming the impugned common judgment,

dated 19.06.2006, passed Crl.A.Nos.81 and 89 of 2002 on the

file of the VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.


     Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

dismissed.

                                         ____________________
                                          JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
28.12.2021

gkv/Gsn