Telangana High Court

Asam Brahmachary Brahmam, ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 26 October, 2022

Bench: G.Radha Rani

                                            1
                                                                               Dr.GRR,J
                                                               Crl.R.C. No. 280 of 2016



             THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 280 OF 2016


ORDER:

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners/respondents/

accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.12.2015 passed in Criminal

Appeal No. 26 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal

reversing the judgment dated 30.07.2014 passed in C.C. No. 291 of 2009 on the

file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal remitting

back the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

2. The complainant lodged a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the

same was referred to Station House Officer of Police Station, Geesugonda and

the police after conducting investigation filed charge sheet against accused

Nos. 1 to 6 for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet filed by the police

was that the complainant was a resident of Gorrekunta, Warangal. She was

having land to an extent of 600 Sq. yards at Narsampet in Survey No. 4/G and 5

and she offered to sell her land and A1, A2 and LW5 - V. Laxmaiah purchased

300 Sq. yards , 150 Sq. yards and 150 Sq. yards each respectively under simple

sale deeds on 02.04.1996. Due to some reasons, the accused and LW5 - V.

Laxmaiah could not register the land in their names. In the year 2006, LW5 -

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C. No. 280 of 2016

V. Laxmaiah sold away part of his land to one K. Bhupal Rao and got it

registered. At the time of registration, the complainant was shown as owner of

the remaining part of the land. A1, A2 and LW5 - V Laxmaiah affixed their

signatures on the sale deed as witnesses. The complainant visited the Registrar

office and affixed her signatures on the sale deed. A1 and A2 asked the

husband of the complainant to register the above land in their names. Taking

advantage of the registered sale deed of LW6 - K. Bhupal Rao, in which, it was

mentioned that the complainant was the owner of the remaining land, the

husband of the complainant demanded A1 and A2 an additional amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- stating that the prices of the lands were increased. Several

panchayats took place. The elders advised the complainant to execute

registered sale deeds in favour of A1 and A2, but they refused. While so, A1

and A2 prepared a passport photograph of the complainant in consultation with

the photographer and consulted with A6 and prepared forged documents and

got registered the land in the name of A1 and A2 by producing the forged

documents and impersonating A3, wife of A1 as the complainant. A4 and A5

attested their signatures as witnesses on the registered document. Knowing

about the same, the husband of the complainant visited A1 and A2 in their

absence and questioned their family members. Later, A1 and A2 visited the

house of the complainant at Keerthinagar and threatened them with dire

consequences.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C. No. 280 of 2016

4. Basing on the complaint referred to the police, the Sub-Inspector of

Police of Geesugonda Police Station registered a case vide Crime No. 151 of

2007 under Sections 420, 468, 504 and 506 IPC and issued FIR. During the

course of investigation, sample signatures and thumb impressions of the de-

facto complainant as well as the accused Nos. 3 and 6 were collected from the

Court and were sent to the finger print expert. The investigating officer also

collected the documents from the Sub-Registrar Office, Narsampet and sent

those documents also to the Director of Finger Prints Bureau, CID, AP through

the Court for comparison. The finger print expert as well as the hand-writing

expert gave reports stating that the thumb marks on Exs. P5 and P6, the

registered sale deeds executed in favour of A1 and A2, were tallying with the

thumb marks of accused No.3, but not with the thumb marks of the

complainant. The hand-writing expert also gave opinion that the signatures on

Exs.P5 and P6, the sale deeds executed in favour of A1 and A2, did not belong

to the complainant. The investigating officer basing on the said report, filed

charge-sheet against the accused Nos. A1 to A6 for the offences under Sections

420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC.

5. The case was tried by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Warangal. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1

to 10 and got marked Ex. P1 to P8. Ex.D1 to D4 were marked on behalf of the

defense.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C. No. 280 of 2016

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial

Court observed that the prosecution could successfully establish that accused

No.3 impersonated as the complainant (PW1) and attested her thumb mark as

that of PW1 before the Sub-Registrar to help accused Nos. 1 and 2 and accused

Nos. 4 and 5 falsely identified the accused No.3 as P.W1 in front of Sub-

Registrar and thereby A1 to A5 committed the offences punishable under

Sections 420 and 468 IPC. As the accused Nos. 1 and 2 falsely claimed that the

thumb marks on Ex. P5 and P6 belonged to PW1 and pressed into service the

fabricated documents to show them as genuine documents, they were further

liable for the offence under Section 471 IPC. The Trial Court however found

A6 not guilty for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The Trial

Court also observed that A1 and A2 not committed the offence under Section

506 IPC. The Trial Court further observed that the offences of forgery,

fabrication and cheating took place at Narsampet and the said facts were

different from the facts constituting the offence under Section 506 IPC, which

was alleged to have taken place at the residence of the complainant at

Keerthinagar, Warangal and there was no link between the offence under

Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC with the offence under Section 506 IPC, no

jurisdiction vested with the Court and when the prosecution failed to prove that

A1 and A2 committed the offence under Section 506 IPC, Section 178 Cr.P.C.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C. No. 280 of 2016

would not attract and acquitted all the accused persons on the point of lack of

jurisdiction.

7. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State preferred an appeal. The

appeal was heard by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal vide Criminal

Appeal No. 26 of 2015 and the lower appellate court observed that the trial

court failed to consider the provisions of Sections 461 and 462 Cr.P.C. and

remanded the matter to the trial court to proceed as per Sections 461 and 462

Cr.P.C. by giving an opportunity to both the parties.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of reversing the acquittal and remanding

the matter to the Trial Court, the accused persons A1 to A6 filed this revision

contending that the order of the appellate court was illegal and against the

principles of law. The Trial Court basing on the oral and documentary

evidence, after appreciation in a reasonable manner, came to a conclusion that

the entire offences alleged in the final report had not taken place within its

jurisdiction but within the jurisdiction of Narsampet Court. The lower

appellate court ought not to have set aside the judgment of the trial court since

the finding of the trial court was based on sound principles of law. The lower

appellate court gave much importance to the dismissal of application filed for

discharge of accused by the trial court but had failed to note that the dismissal

order was at the initial stage but the order of acquittal was after consideration of

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C. No. 280 of 2016

the entire evidence on record. Therefore, the earlier finding of the trial court

could not be basis for setting aside the subsequent judgment delivered after

full-fledged trial. The orders passed by the lower appellate court in remitting

the matter to the trial court was unknown to the criminal jurisprudence and it

would cause much prejudice to the petitioners who were acquitted after a

prolonged trial and prayed to set aside the judgment of the lower appellate

court as the same was passed with non-application of mind.

9. There was no representation for the petitioners/respondents/accused even

though the matter underwent several adjournments since the year 2016.

10. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State and

this Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits.

11. On a perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it would also disclose that

the petitioners / A1 to A6 filed a petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for

discharge on the ground of lack of jurisdiction at the time of framing of charges

but the said petition vide Criminal M.P. No. 406 of 2010 was dismissed by the

then presiding officer by applying Section 178 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said

dismissal of the discharge petition, the petitioners preferred a revision and the

said revision was also dismissed by the Sessions Court confirming the orders of

the trial court in Crl. M.P. No. 406 of 2010.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C. No. 280 of 2016

12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners / A1 to A6

before the lower appellate court was that the alleged creation of photograph of

complainant and her voter identity card and fabrication of all other documents

were alleged to have taken place in Narsampet area, therefore, all the offences

took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Narsampet on 14.08.2007. Only the offence under Section 506 IPC was

alleged to have taken place at Keerthinagar in Warangal on 19.10.2007. There

was no relationship between the offences lodged against the accused under

Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC to the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC

and it could not be said that the offence under Section 506 IPC was either

continuous or in continuation of the earlier offence.

13. The Trial Court by taking recourse of Section 178 Cr.P.C. which comes

under Chapter-XIII - Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials,

pertaining to place of enquiry or trial, wherein it reads that:

"178: Place of inquiry or trial:

a) .........

b) .........

c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one; or

d) ......

It may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C. No. 280 of 2016

14. As seen from the order of the trial court in C.C.No.291 of 2019 dated

30.07.2014, it was also specified that the then presiding officer relied upon two

decisions of High Courts. But the Trial Court observed that it was not

concurring with the opinion of the then Presiding Officer. When the order of

the trial Court in Criminal M.P.No.406 of 2010 was carried in revision and the

same was also confirmed by the Sessions Court and the said order attained

finality, the trial court again stating that it was not concurring with the opinion

of the Presiding Officer is illegal and irregular. When the trial court found the

accused A1 to A5 guilty for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC,

acquitting them for all the said offences on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is

also improper. The lower appellate court by taking recourse of Section 461 and

462 Cr.P.C. set aside the judgment of the trial court in acquitting the accused.

Section 461 Cr.P.C. pertains to irregularities which vitiate proceedings and

Section 462 Cr.P.C. pertains to proceedings in wrong place. Section 462

Cr.P.C. reads as:

" No finding, sentence or order of the Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the enquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it as arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district or sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has infact occasioned a failure of justice".

15. The lower appellate court also observed that no where during the trial the

accused averred that they were prejudiced because of the trial conducted in a

wrong court. Therefore, when the proceedings were not vitiated as

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C. No. 280 of 2016

contemplated under Section 461 of Cr.P.C. and further as per Section 462 of

Cr.P.C. no failure of justice had been occasioned to the accused, it opined that

the trial court erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction and acquitting the

accused was erroneous. This court does not find any illegality or impropriety

in the order of the lower appellate court in the said regard.

16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the

order of the lower appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2015 dated

08.12.2015 in setting aside the order of the trial court and acquitting the