Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Gali Venkateswarlu on 8 June, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 100 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal is filed questioning correctness of the
reversal judgment vide Crl.Appeal No.5 of 2016 dated
05.07.2019 setting aside the conviction judgment in
C.C.No.120 of 2011 convicting the respondent/accused for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
2. The State is further aggrieved by the order of directing
the State to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the
respondent/appellant/accused which shall be recoverable
from the officer who investigated the case and filed charge
sheet.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the
respondent/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from
the defacto complainant-P.w.1 and executed a registered
mortgage deed, mortgaging his house vide document No.4871
of 2004 in favour of the defacto complainant/P.W.1. Since the
respondent/accused failed to repay, a civil suit OS No.618 of
2006 was filed by the defacto complainant to recover the
money from the respondent/accused. In the written
statement filed by the respondent/accused, it was mentioned
that the house which was mortgaged in favour of P.W.1 was an
assigned property in favour of his grand father and for the
reason of his mortgaging the property having knowledge that it
is an assigned property, the respondent/accused has
committed an act of cheating punishable under Section 420 of
IPC and accordingly, learned Magistrate recorded conviction.
4. In Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2016 filed by the
respondent/accused before the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Khammam, learned Sessions Judge reversed the
judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate on
the following grounds:
i) The entire case rests upon the fact that patta was
granted in favour of the grand father of the accused and
further in the patta dated 04.03.1954 it is mentioned that
Laoni Rules relating to grant of house sites stipulates right of
alienation after a fixed period. However, the very basic
document was not placed on record by the prosecution;
ii) As seen from the document executed by the
respondent/accused his only claim is that he is the owner of
the property and in possession and there is an obligation on
the part of P.W.1-defacto complainant to verify the title before
mortgage was obtained;
iii) The evidence on record shows that the suit filed for
recovery was decreed in his favour and execution petition was
also filed by P.W.1. When the Civil Court has decreed in favour
of P.W.1, it means that the transaction is not hit by any
prohibition under any law. Without considering fact that the
dispute is purely civil in nature, the investigating officer had
filed prosecution leading to unnecessary mental agony, for
which, investigating officer is liable to compensate the
respondent/accused and accordingly granted compensation of
Rs.25,000/-.
5. As seen from the finding of the learned Sessions Judge,
there cannot be any amount of doubt that the transaction was
purely a civil transaction and in the back ground of civil court
ordering execution. Pursuant to decreeing the suit in favour of
P.W.1, it cannot be said that there is an element of false
statement pursuant to which, P.W.1 was induced into parting
with money. The basic ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are
not attracted for which reason, the acquittal recorded by the
Sessions Court cannot be interfered with. However, learned
Sessions Court finding fault with the investigation and
consequently filing the charge sheet, Investigating Officer was
directed to compensate the respondent/accused for his
sufferance by paying an amount of Rs.25,000/-.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna
Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and also in the case of
Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 held that under
the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two
fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or
investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved
(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
(2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116
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.
7. In Guru Dutt Pathak's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
"15.In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4
SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , this Court reiterated the legal position as under :
(SCC p. 432, para 42)
'42. ... (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise
of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient
grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are
not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly,
the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.'"
8. The Investigating Officer, on the basis of material
available with him had filed the charge sheet alleging offence
under Section 420 of IPC. It is the exclusive domain of the
Court concerned either to take cognizance of the offence on
the basis of the allegations leveled by application of mind. In
the present case, the cognizance was taken and conviction was
also recorded by the concerned Magistrate Court. In the said
circumstances, it cannot be said that the Investigating Officer
had either mislead the court in any manner. It is the
prerogative of the Investigating Officer to submit his findings
before the court concerned under Section 174 of Cr.P.C by
filing a final report or charge sheet, which is used in common
parlance. The Courts are always at liberty to draw their own
conclusions on the basis of final reports filed by the police and
not in any manner bound by the findings of the Investigating
Officer's investigation.
9. In the said circumstances, the compensation directed to
be paid by the State and to be recovered from the Investigating
Officer is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed off. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands
closed.
________________
K.SURENDER,J
Date: 08.06.2022
kvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No. 100 OF 2020
Date:08.06.2022
kvs
