Telangana High Court
Challagundla Nageshwara Rao vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp on 5 October, 2023
Bench: E.V. Venugopal
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2595 OF 2013
ORDER:
1 Heard Sri Naga Raghu learned counsel representing Sri
M.V.S.Sai Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State - 1st respondent and Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao,
learned counsel for the second respondent.
2 This criminal revision case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 24.12.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.353 of
2011 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad, whereby the judgment dated 18.07.2011 passed in
C.C.No.144 of 2002 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad convicting the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 420 IPC and sentencing him to suffer
simple imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- was confirmed.
3 The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner owned a
house bearing No.8-3-976/92 in Plot No.92 of Shalivahananagar,
Hyderabad. Petitioner pledged his original documents with LIC
Housing Finance Limited and availed Rs.3.00 lakhs for the
construction of the house in the year 1995. Again in 1998 the
petitioner approached A.P. Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank
Limited for a loan and it agreed and as a result the said Bank
cleared the outstanding loan payable to LIC Housing Finance
Limited and took over all the original documents and on mortgage
of the title deeds of the house, it granted him a mortgage loan of
Rs.18.5 lakhs. Therefore, the title deeds of the said house are
not with the petitioner and that they were with his creditor
institutions.
4 It is the case of the prosecution that though the petitioner
was not having the original documents with him, he executed a
document-Ex.P.2 in favour of second respondent on 20.02.1998
on Hundred Rupees stamp paper, which was purchased by him,
which shows that the petitioner orally agreed to sell the property
to the family of P.W.1 for Rs.30.00 lakhs and received Rs.25.00
lakhs out of it. In the said document he clearly mentioned that he
would execute an agreement for sale in writing by 28.02.1998. It
is clearly recited in it by the petitioner himself that after income
tax clearances, he would give the original documents and for the
time being he was giving only their photo copies though, as per
Ex.D.4, he knew that the original title deeds are the with the LIC
Housing Finance Limited. That aspect was not mentioned by the
petitioner in Ex.P.2, having the knowledge that the original title
deeds are not with him. This itself shows that right from the
inception the petitioner kept the second respondent under dark
and misrepresented. However, as agreed upon, the petitioner
executed Ex.P.3 agreement of sale on 28.02.1998. It is admitted
by the petitioner himself that he purchased the stamp papers for
Ex.P.3. Of course, the petitioner admitted about receiving of
advance sale consideration and he executed Ex.P.3 not only in
favour of family members of P.W.1 but also in favour of P.W.1. It
is interesting to see from Ex.P.3 that the petitioner agreed to sell
the property free from all encumbrances and liabilities. It was
further mentioned that he would clear off all the charges over the
property by the date of registration of the sale deed. It was
further mentioned therein that he would hand over all the
relevant documents concerning the property to P.W.1-second
respondent herein by the time of registration. The petitioner
sought time to execute a registered sale deed till 28.02.1999.
Having admitted all the contents, surprisingly, petitioner took a
different plea in the trial that his signatures were forged and that
his signatures were taken on blank papers and later they were
converted into the documents and P.W.1 obtained his signatures
on blank papers. If the version of the petitioner is acceptable that
P.W.1 obtained his signatures by force on blank papers and
converted them into the present documents, he should explain
the circumstances under which he was forced to sign on those
papers, which he did not explain.
5 Further, the petitioner, having executed agreement of sale
on 28.02.1998 in favour of P.W.1, mortgaged the property with
Mahesh Cooperative Bank on 30.07.1998. Thereafter, on
03.08.1998 again the petitioner executed MoU in favour of P.W.1,
which is subsequent to the mortgage with the Bank. In that also
the petitioner concealed the factum of mortgaging the property
with the Mahesh Cooperative Bank. Thus, on one hand petitioner
promised that he would clear of all the encumbrances and charges
over the property and deliver the property free from all
encumbrances, but on the other hand he mortgaged the property
the bank. This act of the petitioner demonstrates his intention to
deceive and defraud P.W.1, rendering himself for punishment
under Section 420 IPC.
6 Both the courts below have discussed all these material facts
available on record and came to a concurrent finding that the
prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 420 IPC. I see no ground much less
valid ground to interfere with the well reasoned findings given by
the Court below and accordingly this criminal revision case is
liable to be dismissed.
7 As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the
appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 24.12.2013 and it is only
on 26.12.2013 when this Court granted bail the petitioner came
out of the jail. Moreover, the offence relates to the year 2002. In
that view of the matter and since the petitioner is roaming around
the courts for about 20 years, this Court is inclined to take a
lenient view insofar as the quantum of sentence is concerned.
8 Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment imposed
against the petitioner for a period of three years is reduced to
that of six months. The period of imprisonment, if any, which the
petitioner had already undergone, shall be given set off under
Section 428 Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand
cancelled and the petitioner is directed to serve out the remaining
period of sentence forthwith.
9 Except the above modification in respect of the quantum of
sentence, this criminal revision case is dismissed in all other
aspects.
10 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal
revision case shall also stand dismissed.
------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 05.10.2023
Kvsn
