APHC010438242016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 730/2016 Between: Kothapalli Bhaskara Ramam, E.D.District ...PETITIONER AND Public Prosecutor Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: P.Vivek Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the judgement dated 17.02.2016 in Crl.A.No.228 of 2014 on the file of the learned X Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry confirming the conviction and sentence for the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) passed by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajahmundry in C.C.No.611 of 2010 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 dated 10.07.2014 sentencing the petitioner to suffer one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only). 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3 Mr. P. Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the ingredients of Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are not attracted, yet the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the said charge and the learned Appellate Court confirmed the judgment; the petitioner has not received any money from the P.W.1; the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the civil dispute was converted into a criminal case at the behest of the de-facto complainant by abusing the process of law; the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that any work done or any amount received by the petitioner from any one would be on behalf of the Jagadeswari Housing Corporation. Therefore, without arraying the corporation as an accused prosecution against the petitioner alone is unwarranted and illegal. P.W.1 ought to have invoked the relief under the provision of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for brevity ‘the Act.,’) for either recovery of the amount parted by him or for specific performance of the contract, and it urged to allow the criminal revision case by setting aside the judgment of the learned Appellate Court. 4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner is more than 60 years old at present. More than one and half decade ago the alleged transaction ensued 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 in between the petitioner and P.W.1. P.W.1 alleged that the accused had induced him and collected Rs.68,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand Only) from him, whereas the learned Trial Court observed that only Rs.28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Only) was parted by P.W.1 and it is also an admitted fact that petitioner paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) to the P.W.1, in his chief examination; the petitioner has been suffering from neurological problems in his brain as a tumour was developed in his brain and he underwent three brain surgeries; his optical brain nerves were cut; he has lost his vision. To that effect, he filed a memo appending the medical records. The petitioner has a wife and child who are depending on him. Evidence of D.W.1 was not considered by the learned Appellate Court on correct prospective; the petitioner was in jail for more than 4 days; the petitioner volunteers that an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) may be imposed towards sentence of fine as Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ does not prescribe minimum sentence of imprisonment. In view of the pathetic health condition of the petitioner, a lenient view may be taken against the petitioner, as he has been mentally suffering from delaying deposal of the criminal revision case. 5. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.W.1 is clear that the petitioner misrepresented himself as the Managing Director of Jagadeswari 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 Housing Corporation, even though he was not so; he was employed there only as an agent or manager that too for some time, but he did not continue the said employment. The learned Appellate Court also observed that the petitioner used the seal of the company of the Jagaeeswari Housing Corporation by mentioning himself as Managing Director on 05.04.2007 on the letter pad. Therefore, it was established that the petitioner had not only misrepresented the de-facto complainant/P.W.1, but also cheated P.W.1 and made him to part with an amount of Rs.28,000/- as observed by the learned Trial Court. 6. As the evidence was established that the petitioner had committed an offence charged under Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C’. The learned Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced him. Indeed the learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same and it urged to dismiss the criminal revision case, submitting that appreciation of the evidence is not feasible under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 7. It is further fairly considered that having seen the memo filed by the petitioner along with medical record which established that the petitioner has been suffering deviated nasal septum with ethamoid mucocoel extending into sphenoid and compressing on both optic nerves fess and optic nerve decompression done under general anaesthesia. It is requested to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner, on the quantum of sentence, while 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 submitting that de-facto complainant is no more and also his wife, but his legal heirs are residing in USA. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 9. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.228 of 2014 dated 17.02.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-Cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 10. While deciding a criminal revision case filed against acquittal of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar1wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under: “13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 11. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale2, at Paragraph No.2 it is held as under: 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 2AIR 1993 SC 1126 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 “…Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below specially by re- appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction….” 12. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh3, at Paragraph Nos.10 to 13 it is held as under: “10. While it is true and now well-settled in a long catena of cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary - this discretion, however, as is popularly informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion which stands "informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system" - resultantly only in the event of a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not to be called for. It is not to be lightly exercised but only in exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In Nosibolla: Logendranath Jha and Chinnaswamy Reddy (supra) as also in Thakur Das (Thakur Das (Dead) by LRs v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., 1978 (1) SCC 27) this Court with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in the event of there being a failure of justice there can said to be no limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power. 11. The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it. On its administrative side, the power is known as the power of superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of revision. The High Court can at any stage even on its own motion, if it so desires, and certainly when illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice call for the records and examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and revisions and interlocutory applications -so also its right to exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court, however, under the provisions of Section 401 is very much circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore. 3AIR 2002 SC 2229 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 12. Having regard to the aforesaid, we do feel it expedient to record that in the contextual facts presently under consideration before this Court, the High Court cannot but be said to have exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order of acquittal. 13. In any event, writing of a fresh judgment as directed by the Court is rather a significant departure in the normal disposal of revisional applications. Opportunities have been given for further argument but would that by itself tilt the scale - this aspect of the matter has already been noticed earlier, as such we need not dilate thereon excepting recording that an extremely significant departure from the normal form of Court orders stands challenged in this Court.” 13. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a second appellate court. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke it’s revisional power as a Second Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, Jagannath Chowdhary and Appa Babu Ingale. However, this Court is not denuded of its powers to examine whether judgments impugned are correct, legal and proper with respect to their findings, sentence or even judgment and there are any material irregularities. If there are manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion. 14. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 4, and got marked Exs.P1 to 7. For the accused side, Ex.D1 was marked. No evidence was let by the 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 accused during the trial. However, the accused examined the owner of the property as D.W.1 before the learned Appellate Court. The evidence of P.W.1 is crystal clear that the petitioner approached him, stating that he was the Managing Director of Jagadeswari Housing Corporation and offered to sell the plot. P.W.1 believed his version and paid an amount of Rs.1,86,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand). However, the learned Trial Court did not believe the version of P.W.1 that he parted Rs.1,68,000/- to the petitioner. The learned Trial Court observed that P.W.1 paid only Rs.28,000/-. The learned Trial Court relied on Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. They show that P.W.1 paid an amount of Rs.18,000/- under Ex.P2 and Rs.10,000/- under Ex.P3. Thus he paid only Rs.28,000/-. Therefore, the version of the P.W.1 that he paid an amount of Rs.1,68,000/- is not totally correct, it is to some extent false. P.W.1 himself testified in his chief examination that the accused paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- and later P.W.1 obtained promissory notes from the petitioner. The expression falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable to Indian jurisprudence. It is the duty of the Courts to separate the grain from chaff, that is, separating the truth for the false. Anyhow, the learned Trial Court believed the version of P.W.1 and other witnesses and found the petitioner guilty of the charge under Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C’. The learned Appellate Court also after considering the evidence of D.W.1, who is the owner of the property, did not believe the version of the petitioner and confirmed the conviction and 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 sentence. Re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 15. Be that as it may, P.W.1, being a proposed vendee, was under the obligation to verify whether the petitioner was an authorized person, let alone the Managing Director of Jagadeswari Housing Corporation. He ought to have properly verified the bona-fides of the petitioner inasmuch as he was about to enter into an agreement of sale, if not a regular sale deed. Sections 55 to 66 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 (for brevity ‘the Act’) also mandate that a person who wants to purchase a property has to be vigilant while ascertaining the title of the vendor. However, the conduct of the petitioner that he is the Managing Director of Jadageswari Housing Corporation itself is an offence punishable under Section 419 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as he impersonated himself as the Managing Director, and he was not at all an employee of the Jagadeswari Housing Corporation by the time of the transaction. Even then, the petitioner continued to impersonate himself as the Managing Director and issued Ex.P2 on behalf of Jagadeswari Housing Corporation with the seal of the company by mentioning himself as Managing Director on 05.04.2007. That letter pad itself shows that the petitioner had entertained an intention of deceiving P.W.1 from the very inception itself. 16. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station4 wherein at Paragraph No.23 held as under: 4(2002) 6 SCC 650 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 “23. ... It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made.” 17. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court also rightly confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C’. In view of the above reasons, the conviction for the charge under Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be maintained. 18. With regard to the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year imposed on the petitioner, the incident in between the petitioner and P.W.1 occurred on 05.03.2007. Whereas, P.W.1 had chosen to lodge a complaint on 25.03.2010. There is a delay of more than three years on the part of the petitioner to put the criminal into motion. 19. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Dehli5 wherein at Paragraph No.9 held as under: “9 ... In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the court at the earliest instance. That is why if 5(2002) 6 SCC 650 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 there is delay in either coming before the police or before the court, the courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case.” 20. As observed supra, P.W.1 falsely contended that he paid an amount of Rs.1,68,000/- to the petitioner. The learned Trial Court believed that P.W.1 paid only Rs.28,000/- based on Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Indeed, P.W.1 himself testified in his chief examination that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Having not satisfied with that amount given by the petitioner, with the influence of the police, P.W.1 obtained some promissory notes from the petitioner. 21. The charge under Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is compoundable at the behest of de-facto complainant, and permission can be granted by the Court. It is submitted that the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 died, and his wife also expired. His children, the legal representatives, are now in USA. Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ empowers the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment upto seven years and also a fine. Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ does not prescribe minimum punishment to be imposed to the petitioner. The petitioner as seen from the documents produced by the counsel for the petitioner vide a memo, has been suffering from deviated nasal septum with ethamoid mucocoel extending into sphenoid and compressing on both optic nerves fess and optic nerve decompression done under general anaesthesia. The petitioner underwent three brain surgeries for a tumor in his brain. He lost his vision partially to 50% after the surgery. He is aged about more than 60 years. 12 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 Nearly 18 years have passed since the date of the incident till the day of the disposal of the criminal revision case. 22. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar6. This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar7. The petitioner had already undergone 4 days of incarceration. The learned counsel for the petitioner volunteers that the petitioner would pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as a measure of penance. The said voluntary statement is recorded and approved inasmuch as Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ does not mandate the imposition of a minimum sentence of imprisonment. 23. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction for the charge under Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ while reducing the sentence of imprisonment which the petitioner had already undergone, while imposing a sentence of payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for one year as imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 6 Air 1979 SC 1360 7 2000 (1) BLJR 37 13 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 24. The learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajahmundry, is directed to take necessary required steps for realizing the fine amount from the petitioner and credit the same to the Government. 25. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 10.07.2025 KMS 14 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2016 Dated 10.07.2025 172 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 730 of 2016 10.07.2025 W KMS