Karra Srinivasa Karra S. Vasu, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1222 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

    CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1478 and 1862 of 2006

COMMON JUDGMENT:


      Since both the Criminal Revision Cases are directed

against the common judgment of the learned Special Judge for

Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.Nos.221 and 253 of 2004, whereby

the learned Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the

conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioners

by the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide its

judgment, dated 30.06.2004, in C.C.No.109 of 2000, 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.


      Crl.R.C.No.1478 of 2006 is filed by A-2 and Crl.R.C.

No.1862 of 2006 is filed by A-3. The case of the prosecution is

that A-1 to A-3 in furtherance of their common intention

knowing fully well that there is no sufficient amount in U.S.A.

Bank brought foreign cheques into existence for huge sums and

obtained F.D.Rs and overdrafts from various branches of State
                                 2




Bank of Hyderabad.      The case against A-1 was split up vide

C.C.No.132 of 2000.


3.    After considering the entire evidence, both oral and

documentary, the trial Court found A-2 and A-3 guilty of the

offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and accordingly

convicted   and    sentenced    them     to    undergo   rigorous

imprisonment for eight months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-

each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months

apart from substantive period of sentence.


4.    In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioners/A-2 and

A-3, the appellate Court, on reappraisal of the entire evidence,

confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial

Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners/A-2 and

A-3 preferred these criminal revision cases.


5.    Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/A-2

and A-3, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-

State and perused the material available on record.

6. The learned trial Court, relying upon the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 5, held that A-2 and A-3 have conspired together and

having knowledge that there are no amounts lying in the

N.R.I.Account of A-1 and also Indian Overseas Bank Account of

A-1 have presented the cheques with dishonest intention and

used them and withdrawn more than six lakhs from P.W.2 bank

and found that the revision petitioners guilty for the offence

under Section 420 of I.P.C. The learned appellate Court while

re-appreciating the entire evidence held that the prosecution

has established the guilt of A-2 and A-3 for the offence

punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable

doubt. No contra evidence was let in by the revision

petitioners. Thus, there is concurrent finding of both the Courts

below with regard to guilt of the revision petitioners and the

learned Counsel for the revision petitioners have also not

pointed out anything, which would discredit the evidence.

Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in the

revisions as far as conviction is concerned. But with regard to

the sentence, it may be noticed that the offence took place in

the year 2000 and almost 22 years have passed and during this

period the revision petitioners must have repented for what

they did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice,

it is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from

eight months to three months while maintaining the fine.

7. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed

of and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the

revision petitioners in C.C.No.109 of 2000 on the file of the XXI

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was confirmed by

the appellate Court is hereby reduced from eight months to

three months, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed

by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the appellate Court.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI 17.03.2022 gkv