Telangana High Court
K.Krishna And Another vs The Stateo F Ap., And Another on 18 September, 2024
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.602 OF 2013
% 18--09--2024
# K.Krishna and another
... Petitioners
vs.
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Appellant: Sri J.Suresh Rao
^Counsel for Respondents: Sri A.Samir Kumar Reddy,
Public Prosecutor
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
------
2
KS, J
Crl.R.C.No.602 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.602 OF 2013
Between:
K.Krishna and another
... Petitioners
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.09.2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? :
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? :
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? :
________________
K.SURENDER,J
3
KS, J
Crl.R.C.No.602 of 2013
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.602 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2
aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.03.2013, in Crl.A.No.88 of
2012, on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad (for short 'the Sessions Court'), whereunder the
judgment dated 25.11.2011 in C.C.No.1381 of 2008, on the file of
the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for
short 'the Magistrate Court'), was set aside.
2. The revision petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are
questioning the conviction by the Appellate Sessions Court under
Section 421 of Cr.P.C, by setting aside the conviction of the
Magistrate Court under Section 420 of IPC.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a private complaint was
filed by respondent No.2/de facto complainant for the offence
under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC
before the Magistrate Court, which was referred to Sanjeeva Reddy
Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad for investigation. The police
referred the case as Civil in nature after investigation. Thereafter,
the de facto complainant filed protest petition and the Magistrate
KS, J
Court took cognizance for the offence under Sections 406 and 420
of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused. The
Magistrate Court, having examined PW1 to PW4 and marking
Exs.P1 to P6, found that all the four accused were guilty of the
offence under Section 420 of IPC.
4. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on the request
made by the accused for an amount of Rs.5,68,000/- to save
accused house property from auction, which was mortgaged in the
Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, the complainant has
lent said amount to the accused. According to the complainant,
the accused had taken loans from several people quoting the same
reason and later he has filed insolvency petition No.85 of 2004
before the VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
During the pendency of the said petition, the house was sold to a
third person, which amounts to offence of cheating and
misappropriation. Thus, the Magistrate Court has convicted all the
accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and
the same was questioned before the Sessions Court by filing an
appeal.
5. Learned Sessions Judge found that no offence under Section
420 of IPC was made out against A1 to A4, however, found that
accused Nos.1 and 2 sold the property to third party after taking
KS, J
loan from the de facto complainant/PW1, which act would fall
under Section 421 of IPC. Sections 421 of IPC reads as under:
"421. Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of
property to prevent distribution among creditors.--
Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals or
delivers to any person, or transfers or causes to be transferred
to any person, without adequate consideration, any property,
intending thereby to prevent, or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby prevent, the distribution of that property according
to law among his creditors or the creditors of any other person,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that the said house property was sold pursuant to the
order of the Civil Court in O.S.No.707 of 1995. When the direction
was made by Civil Court to register the property in the name of
the plaintiff therein, the question of attracting Section 421 of IPC
for disposing of the property in order to prevent the distribution of
that property among his creditors, does not arise.
7. Admittedly, as seen from Ex.P2/sale deed executed by
accused Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the purchasers therein, it was
pursuant to the orders of the Civil Court and the said orders were
passed in a suit filed for specific performance. Suit was filed on
21.09.1993. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the
accused had disposed off the property in order to prevent the
KS, J
distribution of the same among his creditors. The said sale of the
house property was not voluntary, but it was pursuant to Court
direction. Therefore, none of the ingredients of Section 421 of IPC
are made out in the present circumstances. Accordingly, the
revision petitioners succeed and the conviction by the Sessions
Court for the offence under Section 421 of IPC is hereby set aside.
8. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 18.09.2024
Dua
