APHC010541712007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 467/2007 Between: 1. P.ROSA RAO,, S/O. VEERAIAH, BUSINESS, IN PHARMACEUTICALS AT, D.NO. 11-33-10, TATHAKULAVARI STREET, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. LALCHAND KHUMAJI JAIN AT L K HJAIN, S/O. KHUMAJI JAIN, D.NO. 11-25-58, II FLOOR, MAIN ROAD, 2. THE STATE, REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, L&O,I TOWN P.S., VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE STATE, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to submit this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the Judgement in Crl. Appeal No.232/2005 dated 4.12.2006 passed by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Vijayawada by setting aside the Judgment and conviction of the trial court dt.20.10.2005 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada in C.C.No.116/2003 IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1353 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to recall the orders passed in Crl.RC.No.467/2007 , dt.23.10.2007 and the restore the same to its file IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 13634 OF 2011 -2- CRL.R.C. No.467 OF 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 2 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 45922 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 6578 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 2 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 13987 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ROSEDAR S.R.A 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 6444/SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: 1. Instant criminal revision case has been preferred against judgment dt.04.12.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2006 passed by learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Krishna at Vijayawada, (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellate court’) reversing conviction and sentence recorded by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’) in C.C. No.116 of 2003, dt.20.10.2005. 2. PROSECUTION CASE, IN BRIEF, AS FOLLOWS: 2.1 Petitioner herein is the de facto complainant and 1st respondent herein is the accused. On a complaint of the de facto complainant/ petitioner, the -3- CRL.R.C. No.467 OF 2007 police, L & O I town Police Station, Vijayawada, has registered a case in Crime No.1087 of 2002 against the accused/1st respondent for offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 4 read with Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Act, started investigation and filed charge sheet before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The charge sheet was taken on file by learned Magistrate, numbered it as C.C. No.116 of 2003 and conducted trial. 2.2 During the course of trial, prosecution has examined six witnesses and marked several documents as Exs.P.1 to P.5. After hearing both sides and appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial court found the accused guilty of offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 4 read with Section 76 of A.P. Chit Fund Act, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on each charge and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2.3 Aggrieved thereby, accused preferred an appeal. Learned appellate court, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. The said order of acquittal is under challenge in the present criminal revision case. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned appellate court failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6, whose evidence, clearly establishes the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 4 read with Section 76 of the A.P. -4- CRL.R.C. No.467 OF 2007 Chit Fund Act. He further submits that the order of conviction recorded by learned trial court is well founded and that the same ought not to have been interfered with by learned appellate court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. None appears for the 1st respondent/ accused. Perused the material available on record. 5. OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COURT: 5.1 In the present case, accused was charged under Section 420 of I.P.C. To establish the said offence, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention to cheat from the very inception of the transaction. 5.2 Prosecution case, in substance, is that on 16.12.2002 at about 10.30 hours, P.W.1 lodged a report regarding chit fund business conducted by the accused. P.W.1 had enrolled himself as a member of a chit group of Rs.5,00,000/- and had paid 16 monthly instalments of Rs.20,000/- each. Thereafter, the accused allegedly stopped chit fund business. When P.W.1 questioned the accused, the latter prolonged the matter and entrusted P.W.2 to make part payment to P.W.1. It is further alleged that P.W.2 paid Rs.1,64,864/- as part payment, leaving balance chit amount of Rs.1,55,136/-. 5.3 On a careful consideration of prosecution evidence, it appears that the prosecution has only placed Ex.P.2-slips containing some payments. It is not in dispute that the petitioner being the de facto complainant had voluntarily entered into the chit transaction. Moreover, when such chit -5- CRL.R.C. No.467 OF 2007 business was suddenly stopped by the accused, P.W.2 paid some amount. In such circumstances, merely because the accused subsequently failed to pay the entire balance amount, it cannot be concluded that the accused had dishonest intention to cheat the complainant from the very inception of the transaction. Moreover, if accused has such intention he would not have paid Rs.1,64,864/- through P.W.2 after closure of business. 5.4 However, to establish guilt under Section 420 of I.P.C. learned trial court though have observed that evidence of P.W.2 is sufficient, learned appellate court, on appreciation of the entire evidence and documentary material, is of the view that documentary evidences are not sufficient to attract provisions of Section 420 of I.P.C. 5.5 I have carefully perused the findings recorded by learned trial court and learned appellate court. Even if the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is taken to be true, the same could not prove that the accused had an intention to deceive or cheat the complainant from the very inception of the transaction. Accordingly, I find no justification to interfere with the finding of learned appellate court. 5.6 It further appears that prosecution has failed to produce any document that such chit business was running without registration. The chit business was alleged to be conducted by the accused was not established. Mere proof of payment of certain amounts or the existence of a monetary transaction, by itself, does not establish the commission of an offence under Section 76 of A.P. Chit Fund Act. -6- CRL.R.C. No.467 OF 2007 5.7 Considering the same, I find no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned appellate court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, criminal revision case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The criminal revision case is, therefore, dismissed. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.21.09.2026 BV