Telangana High Court

The State Of A.P., vs Konduri Jagan Mohan , Jagan Mohan ... on 19 November, 2025

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1550 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the

judgment passed by the Special Court for the Andhra

Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial

Establishments Act, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as

'the trial Court') in Calendar Case No.3 of 2003, dated

19.02.2008, where under respondents/accused Nos.1, 3, 7

and 9 were acquitted for the offences under Sections 420

and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and

Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of

Financial Establishments Act (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant-State

and Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel, representing

Ms.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for

respondents/accused Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9.

3.1 The case of prosecution in brief is that accused No.1

floated Asmitha Finance and Leasing Limited with himself

as Managing Director and accused Nos.3 to 9 as Directors

and incorporated the same on 4.7.1994 and that during the

year 1996, accused No.1 also included accused No.10 as

one of the Directors. Accused No.1 is son of accused No.2.

Accused Nos.3 to 9 are close relatives of accused No.1.

Accused No.1 floated another eleven companies namely 1)

Asmitha Finance and Investments, 2) Asmitha Power

Systems Pvt. Ltd., 3) Asrutha Meridian Estates Pvt. Ltd.,

4)Asmitha Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 5)

Asmitha Cements Ltd., 6) Asmitha Hotels and Resorts Pvt.

Ltd., 7) Asmitha Communications Ltd., 8) Asmitha Hi-

Tech Bus Services 9) Asmitha Car Finance 10) Nagarjuna

Enterprises and 11) NESCON Group Construction, Finance

Service and Industrial Services.

3.2 It is further case of prosecution that accused No.1

collected deposits from several public on interest and that

the company paid interest up to June, 1997 regularly and

thereafter, committed default in payment of interest as well

as in repayment of deposit amounts. Thus, the accused

Nos.1 to 10 are liable for the offences under Sections 420,

406, 467 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 of the Act.

4. The case against accused Nos.1 to 10 was took

cognizance and numbered as C.C. No.2 of 2000. Since

accused Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 were absconding, the case

against them was split up and numbered as C.C. No.11 of

2002, subsequently it was renumbered as C.C. No.3 of

2003.

5. In C.C. No.3 of 2003, on behalf of prosecution before

the Court below, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Ex.P1 to

P54 and M.Os.1 to 13 were marked. On behalf of defence,

no witnesses were examined, and no documents were

marked. The trial Court after taking into consideration the

oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing

the parties, has acquitted respondents/accused Nos.1, 3, 7

and 9 for the aforesaid offences.

6. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the State filed

the present Appeal.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that

the trial Court without properly appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence on record erroneously acquitted the

respondents, though the prosecution has proved the case.

He further submitted that the trial Court without discussing

the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 5 and interpreting the

documents only, acquitted the respondents. The FDRs and

other documents issued in respect of PWs.1 to 5 are signed

by the respondents and the said incriminating evidence

against the respondents was not in dispute. PWs.1 to 5 in

their evidence categorically deposed before the trial Court

that they have deposited the amounts with the respondents

on their demand but they have not paid the money. Hence,

the ingredients for the offence under Section 5 of the Act are

attracted, however, the trial Court without taking into

consideration the testimony of PWs.1 to 5 acquitted the

respondents. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the

trial Court is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set

aside and the respondents are liable to be convicted for the

offences with which they were charged.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondents submitted that the trial Court took the case on

file and numbered as C.C. No. 2 of 2000 against accused

Nos.1 to 10, however, since the accused Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9

were absconding, the case against them was split up and

numbered as C.C. No.11 of 2002, subsequently it was

renumbered as C.C. No.3 of 2003 and the learned

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, disposed of the

case against the accused Nos.2, 4 to 6, 8 and 10, acquitted

them vide judgment dated 10.03.2006. Aggrieved by the

said judgment, the State had approached this Court and

filed Criminal Appeal along with condonation of delay of 500

days in presenting the Appeal vide Crl.A.M.P.No.2198 of

2007 and this Court dismissed the condonation of delay

application on 08.12.2017. Consequently, dismissed the

Criminal Appeal (SR) No.24009 of 2007 and the order

passed by this Court has become final. He further

submitted that even on merits also, there are no grounds to

interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial

Court on the ground that the trial Court after evaluating the

oral and documentary evidence available on record, has

rightly acquitted the respondents by giving cogent evidence.

Hence, the present Criminal Appeal filed by the State is also

liable to be dismissed.

9. Having considered the submissions made by the

respective parties and after perusal of the impugned

judgment, it reveals that the very same charges are levelled

against the respondents and other accused Nos.2, 4 to 6, 8

and 10. The case against accused Nos.2, 4 to 6, 8 and 10

was split up and numbered as C.C. No.2 of 2000 and the

trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2, 4 to 6, 8 and 10 vide

judgment dated 10.03.2006. In the present case, the trial

Court acquitted the respondents vide judgment dated

19.02.2008 in C.C. No.3 of 2003. The allegations and

charges levelled against the respondents in the present

Appeal as well as against accused Nos.2, 4 to 6, 8 and 10 in

C.C.No.2 of 2000 are one and the same and the evidence

adduced by the prosecution is also one and the same. The

judgment passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.2 of 2000 was

confirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal (SR) No.24009

of 2007, while dismissing the condonation of delay of 512

days in presenting the Appeal and consequently, dismissed

the main Appeal.

10. The trial Court has given specific finding in para Nos.9

to 11 of the judgment and come to conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the

respondents for the offences with which they were charged.

11. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and

another 1, held that while dealing with an appeal against

acquittal, the appellate Court has to consider whether the

trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one,

particularly when evidence on record has been analysed.

1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the

presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus,

the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the

order of the trial Court rendering acquittal.

12. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court after referring several Judgments regarding

the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate

Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as

follows:

"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:

ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2 (2008) 10 SCC 450

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

13. In view of several discrepancies and the principles laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, this Court is of

the considered view that the prosecution has miserably

failed to prove the case against the respondents and the

Court below has rightly acquitted the respondents and there

are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment

passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J