Telangana High Court
Baldev Singh, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1073 OF 2007 and 723 OF 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1.
The Accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.62 of 2003 were tried for
the offence under Section 420 of IPC for cheating several
persons by running chits and converting the chit amounts into
valuable securities like lands, houses, shops etc., and
mortgaging them at Hyder Shah Kot and Ranga Reddy District
and Prudential Bank, Secunderabad and obtained
Rs.29,00,000/-. The second charge against the appellants was
under Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors
Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act of
1999').
2. After conclusion of trial, the learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad found A2 and A3 not guilty for all
the offences charged. However, A1 was found guilty under
Section 5 of the Act of 1999 and also under Section 420 of
IPC. However, for the reason of all the depositors, except two
filing memos stating that the matter has been settled out of
court and they have no grievance against the accused, learned
Sessions Judge sentenced A1 for a period of 25 days under
Section 420 IPC and also under Section 5 of the Act of 1999.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
However, the period of 25 days was already undergone by A1
during his remand period from 03.02.2001 to 01.03.2001.
3. Criminal Appeal No.1073 of 2007 is filed by seven
members of the chits questioning the acquittal of A2 and A3
and also the sentence of 25 days imposed against A1.
4. Criminal Appeal No.723 of 2008 is filed by the State
questioning the acquittal of A2 and A3.
5. Since both the appeals are arising out of judgment in
C.C.No.62 of 2003, they are being heard together and disposed
off by way of this Common Judgment.
6. Learned Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence,
as far as A2 and A3 are concerned, to show that they are
partners of the firm M/s.Sandhya Chits and Finances or
M/s.Sandhya Enterprises. P.Ws.1 and 6, who were examined
in the Court never stated anything about A2 and A3 except
assisting A1 in conducting his business. However, P.Ws.20
and 21, who are Investigating Officers in their evidence stated
that investigation did not disclose any complicity of A2 and A3.
In the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge found
A2 and A3 not guilty of the charges framed against A2 and A3.
7. Having gone through the evidence of the witneses, the
finding of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be found fault
with. In the entire evidence of the witnesses, there is no
narration to attract any of the ingredients of Section 420 of
IPC as far as A2 and A3 are concerned. In the said
circumstances, the appeal filed by the State in Criminal
Appeal No.723 of 2008 is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed, as there are no grounds to interfere
with the order of acquittal.
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that
under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two
fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or
(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved
guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and
investigation. Both these facets attain even greater
significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in
his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption
of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even
indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be
established on record of the Court.
9. When two views are possible, the view which is
favourable to the accused has to be considered and more so,
in a case of acquittal, when there are no glaring infirmities in
the finding of the trial court, the order of acquittal cannot be
interfered with.
10. The evidence of witnesses is that A2 and A3 were
assisting A1 in conducting his business, no other evidence is
brought on record to show that they were privy to any
cheating. In the said circumstances, the well reasoned
judgment of acquittal of the trial Court cannot be interfered
with on the sole ground that A2 and A2 are related to A1
assisting him during his business. To make A2 and A3 liable
along with A1, it has to be shown that they have entered into
criminal conspiracy to cheat. There is no such evidence to
infer any culpability against A2 and A3.
11. Coming to the case of A1, the learned Sessions Judge,
after recording evidence, has found that all the amounts,
which were due to the chit members were repaid, for which
reason, the sentence of 25 days was imposed on A1.
12. The punishment prescribed under Section 420 of IPC is
up to seven years with no minimum sentence. Severity of
punishment depends on each case and depending on the facts
and circumstance of a given case, punishment can extend up
to seven years for the offence of cheating and up to ten years
for the offence under Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection
of Depositors Financial Establishments Act, 1999.
13. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1073 of 2007 did
not state that they did not receive any amount. However, they
stated that they did not file any memos on their behalf
admitting payment for the said amount and withdrawing the
case. However, no specific ground of non payment is taken by
any of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1073 of 2007, who
are victims.
14. The crime was registered on 17.11.2000, 22 years have
passed by. In the said circumstances, in the case, where the
victims were compensated even prior to the judgment of the
trial Court in the year 2007, I do not find any ground to
interfere with the sentence that was imposed on A1 and also
against acquittal of A2 and A3.
15. In view of above facts and circumstances, both the
Criminal Appeals are dismissed. As a sequel thereto,
miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 21.07.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1073 of 2007 & 723 OF 2008
Date: 21.07.2022.
kvs
