Maqsood Ahmed vs State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4648 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    CRL.R.C.No.58 OF 2019
ORDER:

This criminal revision case is directed to set aside the

judgment, dated 23.01.2019, passed in Crl.A.No.633 of 2012, on

the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs &S.Ts

(POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Secunderabad, by modifying the judgment, dated 22.06.2012,

passed in C.C.No.294 of 2006 on the file of XI Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused

No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

Perused the material on record.

3. The respondent police registered case against the petitioner

(hereinafter referred as A-1) on the complaint lodged by PW.1

under Ex.P.1 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and

after investigation, the police laid charge sheet before the learned

XI Additioal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. The

learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of offences and

registered the same in C.C.No.294 of 2016 framed the charges for

the said offences against A-1 and A-2 and after trial by judgment

dated 22.06.2012 convicted A-1 and A-2 for the offence under

Section 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment

for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.5000/- each in default

to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further,

A-1 and A-2 also convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC

and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of

two years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default of payment of

fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six

months. Both sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The

remand period undergone by A-1 from 12.11.2005 to 20.12.2005

was given set off. Being aggrieved, the revision petitioner/A-1

challenged the same in Crl.A.No.633 of 2012.

4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge

vide judgment, dated 23.01.2019, dismissed the appeal confirming

the conviction for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and

modified sentence to that of rigorous imprisonment for a period of

six months retaining the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for each

offence. Against the same, the present revision is preferred.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/A-1

submits that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of

offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and both the Courts below

erred in finding the accused guilty for the said offence. He also

submits that as per the Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.)

A-1 has already handed over his business to A-2 on 15.09.2003

itself and inspite of the same, the trial Court wrongly concluded the

liability of the A-1 for the alleged offences. He further submits

that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution

witnesses and the prosecution failed to prove the case against the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the said offences, and

therefore, prayed to allow the revision case.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that

both the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence and the

prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the A-1 and the

impugned judgments of the Courts below needs no interference.

7. Thus, after hearing the submissions of both the counsel and

on perusing the material available on record, the point for

determination is; whether there are justifiable grounds warranting

interference with the concurrent judgments of both the Courts

below?

8. It is seen from the evidence of prosecution that A-1 and

A-2 stated to be running a travel agency by name Skyline

International Air Travels attracting unemployed persons to send

them to Qatar and other Arab countries for the purpose of

employment. A-1 is stated to be the Managing Director, A-2 is

stated to be the Manager of said Travels. A-1 and A-2 alleged to

have collected Rs.65,000/- each from PW.1 and Md.Khan and

issued receipts to that effect on 07.10.2004, 28.10.2004 and

29.10.2004 promising them to send to Qatar by arranging visas and

other travel documents. A-1 and A-2 had taken PW.1 and

Md.Khan to Mumbai on 23.10.2004 and 23.01.2005 where they

found visas and travel documents are fake. Similarly, A-1 and A-2

alleged to have collected Rs.1,60,000/- from Shaik Amjad

Huzzain, Shaik Khaja Fayazuddin, Mohd.Jaffer and Kaleem @

Rs.40,000/- each promising them to provide jobs at Saudi Arabia

and they were also cheated. In fact PW.1 filed a private complaint

in Ex.P.1 and the same was referred to Station House Officer,

Mahankali Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the

basis of it, a case in crime No.71 of 2005 was registered against

A-1 and A-2, investigated by the police and similarly on the basis

of report dated 06.10.2005 in Ex.P.5 filed by Shaik Hussain who is

not examined, a case in crime No.323 of 2005 was also registered

against A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420

IPC by the Mahankali Police. The police filed common charge

sheet in both the crimes and registered as C.C.No.294 of 2006.

PW.1 is the aggrieved person in crime No.71 of 2005 and another

aggrieved person by name Mohd. Khan was not examined by the

prosecution. PW.1 in his evidence stated that A-1 promised him

and Mohd.Khan to send them to Qatar. As per his demand, they

paid Rs.65,000/- each in the year 2004 and A-1 and A-2 have taken

them to Mumbai. A-1 has given him Xerox copy of air ticket and

asked him to wait in Mumbai for (15) days. Then on the date given

by A-1, PW.1 and Mohd.Khan went to Airport of Mumbai and the

Airport authorities have informed that visa and air tickets were

fake. PW.1 filed receipts Exs.P.2 and P.3. It appears from the

evidence of PW.1, there are minor discrepancies. But nothing was

elicited in the cross-examination. A-1 and A-2 made false promises

and obtained Rs.65,000/- each from PW.1 and another on false

promise to send Qatar for employment and utilized Rs.65,000/- for

their personal benefit. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 coupled

with the evidence of circumstantial witnesses Pws.2 to 6 and

documents in Exs.P.1 to 7 have categorically proved the alleged

offences against the accused. Both the Courts below found that the

prosecution has proved the ingredients for the offences under

Sections 420 and 406 IPC. On careful perusal of entire evidence of

the prosecution, both oral and documentary and the judgments of

the Courts below would reveal that the Courts below have rightly

appreciated the evidence and recorded the conviction. It is settled

principle of law that this court, while exercising revisional

jurisdiction, can not re-visit the entire evidence and has to see

whether there is any perversity in the judgment of the Courts below

while appreciating the evidence. The revisional court can interfere

only if there is any illegality in the order or there is material

irregularity in the procedure or there is error of jurisdiction.

9. In the instant case, a perusal of the material placed on record

reveals that there is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the

judgment under challenge. This Court does not find any merit in

this revision.

10. Coming to the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner/A-1 has mother, three sons

and three daughters and his mother is suffering from heart disease

and he has to look after them. Hence, he prayed for reduction of

the sentence of imprisonment.

11. In the instant case, having given thoughtful consideration to

all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons

for reducing the substantive sentence, while maintaining the

conviction against the petitioner. The incident occurred in the year

2005. The petitioner was in judicial custody from 12.11.2005 to

20.12.2005 and the said period has been already given set off under

Section 428 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. Considering the totality of

the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate that if the

sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner is

modified to the period already undergone by them, the same would

sub- serve the ends of justice.

12. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere

with the concurrent findings of the courts below, including the

sentence imposed by the trial court and modified by the appellate

court.

13. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction recorded against

the petitioner/A-1, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the

trial Court and modified by the appellate Court, is reduced to the

period of imprisonment already undergone by him. However, the

sentence of fine imposed against him remains unaltered.

14. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J

15.09.2022 Nvl