The State Of A.P., vs R.Narsing Rao,
2021 Latest Caselaw 519 Tel

           THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

                      CRL.A.No.511 of 2010

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal

dated 20.02.2009 recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, in CRL.A.No.95 of 2008 for the offences punishable

under Sections 417 and 471 of I.P.C. The appellant is the State.

The case of the prosecution is that A-1 to A-3 hatched a

plan and conspired together and obtained loan from Prudential

Co-operative Bank Limited, Secunderabad by impersonating

the complainant (P.W.1) as A-2 and mortgaging joint property

of A-1 and P.W.1.

The trial Court framed charges against A-1 to A-3 for the

offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C. plea of the

accused is one of total denial. The prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and X1 to prove the

guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused Exs.D1 was

marked.

On considering the entire material available on record,

the trial Court, vide judgment in C.C.No.410 of 2006 dated

25.03.2008, found A-1 to A-3 guilty of the offences punishable

under Sections 417 and 471 of I.P.C. and consequently

convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer

simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence punishable

under Section 417 I.P.C. and also to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in

default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 60 days for the

offence punishable under Section 471 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by

the said judgment, A-1 to A-3 preferred Crl.A.No.95 of 2008

and that the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by

judgment dated 20.02.2009, after re-appreciating the entire

material on record, acquitted the accused as he found that the

prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubt. Against the said judgment of acquittal,

the State preferred the present appeal.

Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents-accused.

I have gone through the evidence and the judgments of

the Court below. P.W.1 and A-1 are brothers and they are joint

owners of house property bearing No.15-5-586, Ashok Bazar,

Hyderabad. It is alleged that by mortgaging the said property

and A-2 impersonating himself as P.W.1, A-1 and A-2 obtained

loan of Rs.2,05,000/- on 20.01.1995 jointly from Prudential Co-

operative Bank Limited by executing relevant documents with

forged signatures of P.W.1 and that A-3 stood as guarantor for

the said loan. Subsequently, the loanees became defaulters and

the bank filed a case for recovery of loan amount before the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies and obtained an award and

then filed E.P.716 of 1998 for realization of Rs.4,27,009/- with

interest covered by the award and that P.W.1 received notice in

Execution Petition, approached the bank, verified the records

and found his signatures were forged and that since joint

property was put to sale by the bank to realize the award

amount, P.W.1 and A-1 discharged the loan amount to the

bank. The appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence of

Bank Managers, who were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, held that

P.W.1 was also a co-loanee along with his brother A-1 and both

of them executed Exs.P2 to P4 jointly. From a perusal of the

evidence on record, it is evident that P.W.1 gave a false report

to the police with a view to avoid repayment of his share of

loan amount. There is no evidence let in to show that anybody

other than P.W.1 forged signatures of P.W.1 in Exs.P2 to P4.

Having considered the submissions of the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the

respondents-accused and after perusing the judgment of the

appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the appellate

Court is justified in recording the acquittal, as nothing is

pointed out to interfere with the judgment of the appellate

Court. The appellate Court discussed the entire evidence in

detail and came to a correct conclusion that the respondents-

accused were not guilty of the offences with which they were

charged. The evidence let in by the prosecution does not

inspire confidence to prove the guilt of the respondents-

accused and the appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent

reasons in acquitting the respondents-accused. I find no reason

or justification to interfere with the judgment of the appellate

Court.

The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

23-02-2021 Gsn.