The P.P., A.P.H.C., Hyd. vs M.Narasing Rao, Medak Dist.
2021 Latest Caselaw 2922 Tel

        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE C. SUMALATHA

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 103 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment

dated 20.04.2007 rendered by the Court of Principal Sessions

Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in S.C.No.395 of 2004, the

appellant approached this Court by way of this Appeal.

2. In the grounds of Appeal, it is urged that the judgment of

the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and

probabilities of the case; that the learned Judge ought to have

seen the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section

420 IPC and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of

Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'the

Act'); the learned Judge ought to have observed that the

respondent/accused confessed the commission of offence in the

presence of the mediators and that he ought to have seen that the

prosecution examined 6 witnesses and all of them supported the

case of the prosecution and thus, the judgment of the trial Court

is unsustainable and therefore, this Appeal.

3. Reported to take it as heard by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the appellant as well as the learned counsel

for the respondent.

Dr. CSL, J

4. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

1) Whether the appellant established beyond all

reasonable doubt before the trial Court that the

respondent/accused committed the offence

punishable under Section 420 IPC;

2) Whether the prosecution proved beyond

reasonable doubt before the trial Court that the

respondent/accused committed the offence

punishable under Section 5 of the Act;

3) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment

of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of

the case or in applying the law to the said facts as

contended by the appellant which needs

interference by this Court exercising appellate

jurisdiction.

5. POINTS 1 & 2:

The crux of the case as projected in the charge sheet is that

the respondent/accused is running a chit fund business and P.W.1

joined as a Member of the chit for Rs.1,00,000/- and the said chit

commenced on 16.10.1996 and it last till 16.10.1998 and P.W.2

paid all the monthly instalments of Rs.4,000/- regularly and the

chit was knocked down on his name on 16.10.1998 and the Dr. CSL, J

respondent/accused has to pay Rs.96,000/- as prize money to him

but he has paid him only Rs.44,000/- and failed to pay the rest of

the amount.

The Record discloses that putting into scrutiny the evidence

of P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P.1 to P.6, the learned Judge of the trial

Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to

establish beyond all reasonable doubt the charges levelled against

the respondent/accused and thereby, acquitted him. The findings

arrived at and the conclusion drawn are disputed by the appellant

through this Appeal. No doubt, as rightly contended by the

appellant in the grounds of Appeal, all the 6 witnesses examined

by the prosecution supported its case. However, when the record

is meticulously perused, P.W.1 during the course of cross-

examination clearly stated that he does not possess any document

to show that he was admitted as a Member of chit with the

respondent/accused. Though Exs.P.1, P.1(A) and P.1(B) were got

marked, their genuineness is not established as provided under

law. For getting a conviction for the offence punishable under

Section 420 IPC, there is every necessity on the part of the

prosecution to establish the aspect of dishonest inducement by

the accused for delivery of property or to make, alter or destroy

wholly or part of the valuable security or anything of that sort.

Dr. CSL, J

In the case on hand, no such dishonest inducement is

projected or established by the prosecution. Thus, the aspect of

cheating is found not established beyond all reasonable doubt.

Now, coming to the other charge that is for the offence

punishable under Section 5 of the Act, when the said Act is

meticulously perused, it is found that the said Act came into

effect from 01.11.1999 vide G.O.Ms.No.348, Home (General-B),

dated 29.10.1999. The basis of the prosecution's case is Ex.P.2 -

Complaint. In Ex.P.2, there is a clear mention that the chit started

on 16.10.1996 and ended on 16.10.1998.

As discussed supra, the Act came into effect from

01.11.1999. Thus, the said Act itself was not in force by the date

of the alleged offence. Therefore, the respondent/accused cannot

be held guilty of the charge levelled against him invoking the

provisions of the said Act. An observation to that effect was also

made by the trial Court. Hence, this Court considers that the

prosecution totally failed to establish the charges levelled against

the respondent/accused before the trial Court.

6. POINT No.3:

When the judgment of the trial Court is perused, this Court

finds that the trial Court has dealt with all the aspects of the case

and gave clear findings on each and every charge. None of the Dr. CSL, J

observations made by the learned Judge of the trial Court needs

any interference by this Court. None of the grounds urged could

shake the validity of the judgment of the trial Court which is

supported by reasons. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be

interfered with.

7. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed

confirming the judgment rendered by the Court of Principal

Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in S.C.No.395 of 2004

dated 20.04.2007.

______________________ DR. C. SUMALATHA, J 21st OCTOBER, 2021.

kvni