The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs V.Venkateshwar Rao,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4799 Tel

                  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1887 of 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the

respondent/A2 for the offence under Sections 409, 468, 471

and 420 of IPC vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.97 of

2007 dated 24.06.2008 passed by the II Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the present appeal

is filed.

2. The Police-CID, City Zone-II, filed case against A1 to A3

in Cr.No.3 of 1995 under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of

IPC. The State police, after investigation filed charge sheet

against A1 to A3. A1 died, for which reason, the case against

A1 was abated. A2 and A3 were proceeded against by the VI

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and by

order dated 26.02.2007, convicted A2 and A3. However, the

respondent/A2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2007

before the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge, by order dated

24.06.2008 acquitted the respondent/A2 for the offences as

stated supra.

3. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was

lodged by the Special Deputy Collector, P.A to Commissioner

on behalf of Commissioner, Printing, Stationery & Stores

purchase, Chanchalguda stating that the stationery items

including white papers to various State Government

Departments in the State of Andhra Pradesh were being

supplied through stationery wing of the said department

through its Head Office at Chanchalguda and branch office at

Kurnool and Vijayawada. During audit, certain objections

were made and several irregularities including

misappropriation of large quantities of stationery by the

officers concerned was found. The said misappropriation was

by manipulating, tampering and making false entries in the

concerned registers. An enquiry was ordered, in which P.W.2,

Mohd. Meeran Mohiuddin, was appointed as enquiry officer.

On completion of enquiry, he submitted three separate reports

pertaining to Head Office, Chanchalguda, Branch offices

Kurnool and Vijayawada. He pointed out that in the Head

office at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, irregularities and

misappropriation to a tune of Rs.3,26,462.97 np, in the

branch office at Kurnool to a tune of Rs.12,972.57 np and

Rs.5,51,413.43 np in the branch office at Vijayawada and

named the officers responsible.

4. The police, after investigation charge sheeted the

respondent/A2 and two others as stated above. The learned

Magistrate, after adducing evidence found that there was

misappropriation of stationery articles and that the

respondent/A2 and two others were responsible for the

misappropriation of stationery articles at Vijayawada branch

by adopting three kinds of modus oprandi. The said modus

operandi was by way of excess debiting, directing debiting and

false debiting. Stationery articles were shown as issued to non

existing offices by forging the signatures of indentors by

creating false indents and false gate passes. In the said

process, the accused caused loss to the government by

creating fake indents, gate passes and forging the signatures

of indentors, showing the same as genuine.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, on appeal found that the

learned Magistrate has only reproduced the entire evidence on

record and gave finding that the accused are guilty of the

charges. However, there is no discussion as to how the

offences were attracted. The learned Sessions Judge found

that for offence under Section 420 IPC, there should be

deception of a person and pursuant to such deception

practiced, a person must have been induced to deliver any

property. The case is not one of inducement, but a case of

entrustment over the stationery items alleged to have been

misappropriated by the Government servants. For the said

reasons, the case of the prosecution being one of entrustment,

an offence falls within Section 409 of IPC, but no offence is

made out under Section 420 IPC.

6. Learned Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence

to establish that the respondent/A2 and others have created

any false document for the purpose of cheating and used the

same as genuine. In the said circumstances when there are no

forged documents an offence under Section 468 of IPC is not

made out. Further, in the absence of any forged documents

being used for the purpose of cheating, Section 471 of IPC is

not attracted.

7. Regarding the offence under Section 409 IPC, learned

Sessions Judge found that P.W.1 has stated that he did not

verify the receipts of the stationery items with respect to the

indents and also did not collect acknowledgments from the

receiving departments. In the absence of verification of the

receipts and the acknowledgments with respect to the indents

and corresponding acknowledgments, it is not possible to

come to a definite conclusion about any such excess debiting,

directing debiting and false debiting. The amount of balance

of stationery was also not correct when the said balance was

not verified, the question of misappropriation does not arise.

The officers receiving the stationery were also not examined.

Though testified that they have sustained loss, they did not

mention about the complicity of the 2nd respondent or anyone

else. The basis for lodging the complaint against the

respondent/A2 was the enquiry report of Mohd.Meeran

Mohiuddin, but the said enquiry report was also not produced.

The material documents, which are registers containing

entries of issuing material and gate passes were also not

seized during investigation. The said documents would have

thrown light on the alleged misappropriation, if produced. In

the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge found that

the evidence on record is not sufficient to record conviction

and accordingly, set aside the conviction recorded by the

learned Magistrate.

8. Having perused the record, the findings of the learned

Sessions Judge are based upon the evidence adduced during

the course of evidence. None of the ingredients of Sections

468, 471 and 420 of IPC are made out. No documents are

produced to say that they were fabricated documents, the

question of using fabricated documents for the purpose of

cheating does not arise. None of the documents were

established to be fabricated.

9. Coming to the offence under Section 409 IPC, the

prosecution has failed to produce material documents in

respect of their claim that there was any entrusment. In the

absence of proof of the stationery being supplied to the

departments, both existing and non-existing, the question of

misappropriation does not arise. The reasons given by the

learned Sessions Judge based on record and reasonable.

10. 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 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

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

implication. But then, this has to be established on record of

the Court.

11. The finding of the learned Sessions cannot be said to be

unreasonable, warranting interference by this Court in appeal.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 21.09.2022 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.A.No.1887 of 2008

Dated:21.09.2022

kvs