APHC010093072006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1802/2006 Between: M. Ravi ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: C. Prakash Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 18.10.2006 in Crl.A.No. 48 of 2003 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, confirming the judgment dated 25.03.2003 in C.C.No.81 of 2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda, finding the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 477(A), 465, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and convicted the petitioner under Section 248 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs,6,500/- (rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only) and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri C. Prakash Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision argued that the petitioner, being the Shoroff deputed to work in the office of Sub-Treasury, Pathikonda, he only obeyed instructions of STO/accused No.1, therefore, he cannot be held liable for any charges; the petitioner prepared the documents and brought the money from the bank and handed over it to accused No.1 vide endorsement in Ex.P13 treasury bill book; the learned Courts below failed to see that the prosecution had not proved the offences under Section 477(A), 465, 409 and 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ against the petitioner; the trial court did not deal the case charge or offence wise; no charge under section 34 of ‘the IPC.,’ was framed by clearly disclosing about meeting of the minds in between the petitioner and accused No.1 and urged to allow the revision case. 4. 4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the alleged offence occurred in the year 2000 and the petitioner at the time of the alleged offence was aged about 22 years; nearly 25 years have passed by; he was probationer in service; later his probation was terminated; he had suffered a lot of mental agony; now he is aged about 46 years; vide Ex.P.13 the amount drawn by the petitioner was handed over to the Accused No.1; in the month of June, 2000 the incident 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 occurred and the Accused No.1 was retired as Sub-Treasury Officer on 30/6/2000; the petitioner was sent on deputation as Shoroff in Sub-Treasury Office, Nandikotkur in the month of March, 2000 only and he was assigned to attend pension work; an amount of Rs1,20,391/- was directed to be drawn fraudulently with fictitious names of pensioners; the accused No.1/STO died; petitioner has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and implored to impose sentence to which he had already undergone. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.48 of 2003 dated 18.10.2006, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1 wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under: “12. … We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re- appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. 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.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has o right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” 2AIR 1951 SC 196 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub- section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.” 9. 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 10. To prove the guilt of the petitioner and accused No.1, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.1 to 50. The prosecution could be able to establish that the accused No.1 at the relevant time of the commission of the offences was working as Sub-Treasury Officer, Pathikonda. He was due for retirement from Service on 30.06.2000. Whereas, the Petitioner/ Accused No.2 was originally a Shoroff in the Office of Sub-Treasury, Nandikotkur, but he was working in the office of Sub-Treasury, Pathikonda on a deputation Order dated 16.03.2000, issued by the District Treasury Officer, Kurnool. At that relevant point of time, the Pension clerk in the office of the Sub-Treasury, Pathikonda, was sent for training and the Accused No.1 had been utilizing the services of the Petitioner in the day-to-day official works of the Office especially in regard to the Pensioners matters. 11. Both the Petitioner and Accused No.1 in the Month of June, 2000, by the end of which month the Accused No.1 was due for retirement by superannuation, had planned together, connived to defraud the State Government, with an avarice to enrich themselves resorted to falsify the records of that office, especially, the Sub-Treasury Office Number Book (Ex.P.24) under the custody of the Accused No.1, Token Number book/Token Register (Ex.P.34), Treasury Bill Book (Ex. P.13), Pension Pay Bank Book for the month of June, 2000 (Ex.P.23), Strong Room Gate Entry Register and prepared two vouchers/bills in the names of G.P. Maddikerappa (P.W.4) (Identification No. SDC 0089113), and Veluru Vijayalakshmi (P.W.5) (12 FG 002744), towards arrears of Pension for the months of March to May 2000, 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 though they had no claim for arrears of their pensions existing at that time, and issued Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 Pension Vouchers respectively in their names. They also prepared similar bills for arrears of pension in the fictitious names of Hema Sundaramma, A. Saraswathamma, S. Chandravathamma, Yeshodamma, A. Hymavathamma, for the same months of March to May, 2000 and two more bills for similar claims even without mentioning any details therein in the fictitious names of two other persons M. Soubhagya, Subramanyam, all in a span of 21 days. 12. The Accused No.1 passed all those nine bills in the name of the above said persons for various amounts against their names which bills were prepared by Petitioner. The Accused No.1 then endorsed all those nine bills after entering them in Treasury Bill Book (Ex.P.13] vide entries Ex.P.14 to P.22, Petitioner prepared pension vouchers in the name of those nine persons, Ex. P.3 and Ex.P.4 and Ex. P.6 to P.12. Further entries were made in Ex.P.24 Sub- Treasury Token Number book vide Ex. P.25 to P.33 and prepared Token Register Ex.P.34 showing token numbers vide Ex. P.35 to P.43. The Accused No.1 endorsed all those nine bills to Petitioner in his name for encashment from the Bank. The Petitioner had gone to the Bank and drew a total amount of Rs. 1,20,391/-, as if they were being drawn and paid viz., Rs.7,625/- to G.P. Maddikerappa (P.W.4), Rs. 11,286/- to V. Vijaya Lakshmi (P.W.5) (Pensioners of Sub-Treasury Office, Pathikonda), Rs 14,754/- in the name of Hema Sunderamma, Rs. 16,545/- in the name of A Saraswathamma, Rs.13,881/- in the name of S. Chandravathamma, Rs. 19,952/-in the name of Yesodamma, 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 Rs. 11,826/ in the name of A. Hymavathamma, Rs.11,826/ in the name of M. Soubhagya and Rs.12,696/ in the name of Subramanyam (all non- pensioners/fictitious persons). However, after drawal of the amounts, no amounts were paid to the Pensioners of the said Office of P.W.4 and P.W.5 and to anyone but were appropriated by the appellants. 13. The Records were manipulated where the signatures and thumb impressions of the nine persons were forged. After the records were sent in the next month to the District Treasury Office, during verification the above transactions were inspected. This was brought to the notice of the Deputy Director, District Treasury Office, Kurnool, J. Prasad (P.W. 1). He deputed. P.W.2 – B.A. Venugopal, Assistant Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Kurnool and P.W.3 – K Venkateswarlu, Senior Accountant, District Treasury Office, Kurnool who visited the Sub-Treasury Office, Pathikonda, verified the books, accounts and pension, papers of the said office for the months of March to May 2000, June 2000 and detected the said fraudulent withdrawals of the State money to a tune of Rs. 1,20,391/- in the names of two registered pensioners and in the names of seven fictitious persons by the Petitioner and Accused No.1 by falsifying the records, by forgery. P.W.2 submitted a report under Ex. P.2 to Deputy Director, District Treasury Office, Kurnool, (P.W.1), who in turn sent up a written complaint vide Ex.P.1 to the Inspector of Police, Pathikonda (P.W.9), who registered it as an F.I.R. against both the Petitioner and Accused No.1 vide Ex.P.48 under Sections 477 (A), 465, 409 and 420 of ‘the I.P.C.’ r/w 34 of ‘the I.P.C.’ took-up the investigation and seized Sub- 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 Treasury Number Book vide Ex.P.24 Pension Vouchers marked under Ex. P.3, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.6 to Ex. P.12, Token Register (Ex. P.34), Strong Room Gate Entry Register, Preliminary report of P.W. 1(Ex. P.2), list of pensioners for the month of June, 2000 (Ex.P.23), Treasury Bill Book Register (Ex P.13), he examined and recorded the statements of the Real Pensioners P.W.4 and P.W.5 in whose names also arrears were drawn. P.W.4 and P.W.5 deposed that there were no arrears in their names and no amounts were paid. 14. The Inspector of Police arrested the Petitioner on 11.10.2000. Meanwhile, the Accused No.1 got anticipatory bail from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. P.W.9 – Inspector of Police filed a requisition under Ex.P.45 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathikonda, to obtain the specimen hand-writings and signatures of both the Petitioner and Accused No.1 and accordingly, in the open Court they were obtained under Ex.P.9 of the Petitioner and Ex.P.50 of the Accused No.1. These admitted signatures were referred to Hand-writing Expert at F.S.L. Hyderabad, along with the Registers and Records referred supra, containing the signatures and writings of both the Petitioner and Accused No.1 for comparison and opinion of the Hand-writing Expert along with letter of advice vide Ex.P.46. A report Ex.P.47 was received from the F.S.L. with the opinion dated 28.02.01 that the persons who wrote the admitted signatures obtained before the Court also wrote the questioned documents and put their signatures. 15. With regard to other bone of contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no charge framed against the petitioner under 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ or Section 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ about meeting of minds in between the petitioner and the accused No.1 and each charge was not dealt separately by the learned Trial Court, it has to be observed that the petitioner was provided an ample opportunity to cross examine witnesses of the prosecution and the petitioner was very much aware about the allegations levelled against him. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in not framing charges under Sections 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ or Section 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ inasmuch as charges under Sections 477 (A), 465, 409 and 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ were framed against the petitioner and the accused No.1. 16. There was no misreading of the evidence in finding the petitioner guilty by the Trial court and the Appellate Court. There are no perverse findings. The learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and found the petitioner and Accused No.1 guilty of the offences charged. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke its 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, D Stephens and K Chinnaswamy Reddy. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar4 it is held that right to speedy trial which includes 4AIR 1979 SC 1360 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 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 Bihar5. The right of speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a reasonable time. Therefore, the delay is also one of the grounds to modify the impugned order. 18. Offence occurred in the year 2000 and the petitioner at that time was aged about only 22 years, a new entrant into the Government service as Shoroff. He did not know the nature of job much less nuances of it. The accused No.1 was the real mastermind in the entire offence. The petitioner was made and used as scapegoat. He was a probationer in service. Later his probation was terminated. Now he is aged about 46 years. Importantly, vide Ex.P.13 the amount drawn by the petitioner was handed over to the Accused No.1, thus he was not beneficiary. The petitioner was sent on deputation as Shoroff in Sub-Treasury Office, Nandikotkur in the month of March 2000 and he was assigned to attend pension work. In the month of June 2000 the incident occurred, and the Accused No.1 was retired as Sub-Treasury Officer on 30/6/2000. An amount of Rs1,20,391/- was directed by the Accused No.1 to be drawn fraudulently with fictitious names of pensioners. 5 (1999) 7 SCC 604 12 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1802 of 2006 Dated 08.04.2025 19. The accused No.1/STO died. Of course, the learned Trial Court did not deal the case offence wise. No charge under section 34 of ‘the IPC.,’ was framed. Petitioner has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid- 19 complications. He has been suffering from impoverishment. As stated supra, the occurrence took place about 25 years ago. The petitioner has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 25 years. Therefore, it is appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to be reduced to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 20. The learned Trial Court imposed Rs,6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only) which was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The petitioner paid the fine amount while preferring the appeal. 21. In view of the obtaining peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is disposed of confirming and maintaining the conviction, while reducing the sentence to which the petitioner had already undergone. 22. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________________ DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated 08.04.2025 VTS/KMS