APHC010223132013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. MELLAMPUDI RAMANAIAH, S/O.ANJANEYULU, R/O.KOMAROLU VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST. 1. THE STATE OF PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Heard. 2. Accused No.1 to 4 were charge sheeted by Investigating Agency for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.20 of 2025 alleging that Accused No.1 to 4 has lured amount of money with a promise that they will got appointments 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 250 OF 2013 MELLAMPUDI RAMANAIAH, S/O.ANJANEYULU, R/O.KOMAROLU VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF A.P. ...RESPONDENT Petitioner: CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order : to 4 were charge sheeted by Investigating Agency for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.20 of 2025 alleging that Accused No.1 to 4 has lured 28 youths and procured huge amount of money with a promise that they will got appointments in Army. After IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA MELLAMPUDI RAMANAIAH, S/O.ANJANEYULU, R/O.KOMAROLU ...PETITIONER ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY PUBLIC ...RESPONDENT to 4 were charge sheeted by Investigating Agency for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.20 of 2025 and procured huge in Army. After 2 trial, learned Trial Court has convicted the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two (02) months. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, Accused No.1 to 4 preferred an Appeal before the leaned Sessions Judge concerned. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, acquitted the Accused No.2 to 4, but confirmed the order of conviction against Accused No.1. Accused No.1 preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 submits that the impugned Judgment and sentence passed by the learned Courts below is improper. He further submits that the Charge Sheet was submitted against Accused No.1 to 4. Learned Appellate Court must have acquitted all the Accused persons when a single crime was alleged to have been committed jointly by all accused No.1 to 4. 5. He further submits that during the course of trial, the prosecution had adduced as many as 20 witnesses, amongst them only P.W-2 and P.W-7 supported the prosecution case, but other PWs became hostile. Learned Trial Court has recorded conviction only based on the evidence of PW-2 which is dangerous. He further submits if evidence of PW-2 is not properly scanned; it would be revealed that the present Petitioner being Accused No.1 has not 3 received single paise from any of the person, but the money was handed over to one Mr. Vijayakumar Patil, one of the staff of the Army. 6. He further submits that the evidences are available on record to show that Accused No.1 has not personally received any money, but has handed over to Mr. Vijayakumar Patil in the presence of other witnesses. It is further submitted that one such evidence was there in the record. 7. He further argued that learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court should have acquitted the Accused No.1. He further submits that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and ingredients thereof against the present Petitioner has been sufficiently proved. There are no direct evidences against the present Petitioner that he dishonestly induced any of the persons. 8. It is further argument on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged incident happened in the year 2005. The Petitioner was charge sheeted in the year 2005. Since then 20 years have already elapsed. At this juncture, the punishment against the present Petitioner is not justified and he prayed for setting aside the order of conviction against the Accused No.1. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor refuted the version of learned counsel for the Petitioner and pointed out that Paragraphs 19, 20 and 23 of the observation of the learned Appellate Court. He submits that there are evidences on record to show that Accused No.1 was main culprit who induced all 28 youths by a promise that they shall get appointment in Army job. He further submits that peculiar facts of this case suggest fake examination and 4 interview was conducted at the behest of Mr. Vijay Kumar Patel as well as other Accused persons thereof. 10. He further submits that the evidence also justified the fact that 28 youths got fake appointment letters and proceeded to join in their respective Army camp, wherein the Army Officials have denied their entry apprehend them and also and put them under bars after initiation of prosecution. 11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that connivance of Accused No.1 with Mr. Vijayakumar Patil has been well proved, thus the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC has well explained. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court in Paragraphs 23 of the Judgment has given detailed reasons as to why Accused No.2 to 4 were acquitted from this. He submits that there is no illegality or impropriety by the Learned Appellate Court in passing the impugned order of conviction against the Accused No.1. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case has no merit to entertain. 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Police Authority has unearthed a racket of fake appointment in Army. Thereafter several cases were lodged. Amongst them, one of the cases is this. During the course of investigation, the allegations were prima facie proved against Accused No.1 to 4. Accordingly, Charge Sheet was submitted under Section 420 of the IPC. During trial, several witnesses were examined, 5 most of them declared hostile. Only PWs-2 and 7 supported the prosecution case. So far as prosecution case is concerned, learned Trial Court has observed that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the guilt against the Accused No.1 to 4. Accordingly they were sentenced to imprisonment. 13. During Appeal, learned Appellate Court has observed that there is no sufficient material placed against the Accused No.2 to 4. Accordingly, their guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, it has been observed by the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court that the allegation against Accused No.1 has been sufficiently proved. 14. Let me consider whether observation of the learned Appellate Court in respect of Accused No.1 is justified. Peculiar fact goes to show that Accused No.1 was running a Telephone Booth. It has also been not denied that all the 28 youths were gone to Bangalore for so called fake Army examination at the behest of Mr. Vijayakumar Patil. The evidence also suggests that Mr. Vijayakumar Patil had connections with Accused No.1. Accused No.1 in the presence of other persons had handed over the money to Mr. Vijayakumar Patil. 15. Learned Trial Court has observed that Accused No.1 collected the amount on behalf of Mr. Vijayakumar Patil. Learned Appellate Court has observed that the money has been handed over in the presence of other witnesses with the connivance of Mr. Vijayakumar Patil. The sole finding of Appellate Court is that the youths were cheated by Accused No.1 and they 6 had no knowledge, who Mr. Vijayakumar Patil was at the relevant point of time. Payment of Rs. 90,000/- by Accused No.1 to Mr. Vijay Kumar Patel, after receiving the same from the cheated persons was also been proved. 16. According to the definition of cheating under Section 415 of IPC, it is required to prove in case of cheating that the person has deceived fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to deliver some property. 17. In this particular case, the prosecution filed Charge Sheet against the Accused No.1 with allegation that Accused No.1 has deceived some youths and by such inducement some of the youth has delivered huge amount of money to Accused No.1. Subsequently the said money was delivered to Mr. Vijayakumar Patil. It has been sufficiently proved that though Mr. Vijayakumar Patil has accepted the amount that does not mean that Mr. Vijayakumar Patil only deceived the youths, rather it has sufficiently proved that Accused No.1 has voluntarily deceived the youth, so that they can deliver the amount. 18. Considering the above situation, it appears that learned Appellate Court has correctly scanned the evidences on record and the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is well reasoned and vocal order. I carefully perused Paragraph No.20, 21 and 23 of the observation of the learned Appellate Court, it appears to me very reasonable and justifiable. Conviction on the basis of soliter witness is maintainable subject to the same must be 7 reliable and trustworthy; volume of witnesses is no required to prove guilt. In this case evidence of PW-2 and PW-7 appears to be believable. 19. Under the above observation, I find that the order of conviction against Accused No.1 passed by the learned Appellate Court is justified. 20. Under the above observation, I find no justification to entertain this Criminal Revision Case. 21. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to serve out the remaining portion of sentence, failing which learned Trial Court is at liberty to issue Non Bailable Warrant of arrest against the Petitioner to comply the order. Order of suspension of sentence granted by this Court in this Criminal Revision Case is hereby revoked. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 14.11.2025 KK 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 250 OF 2013 14.11.2025 KK