APHC010615442009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1774/2009 Between: 1. ANNAPUREDDY GURUNADHAM, S/O.HARANADHA BABU, DEENABANDHU SERVICE ORGANISATION, R/O. 3RD LANE RAMIREDDYTHOTA, GUNTUR ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT 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 set aside the judgment and conviction in Crl.No. 168 of 2009, in its Judgment dated 22.10.2009, on the file of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in confirming the judgment passed by IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in C.C.No. 297 of 2008 in its Judgment dt.02.04.2009, by allowing the revision case. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2467 OF 2009 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 suspend judgment passed in Crl.No. 168 of 2009, in its Judgment dated 22.10.2009, on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in confirming the judgment passed by IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in CC.No. 297 of 2008 in the Judgment dt.02.04.2009, by enlarging the petitioner on bail in the interest of justice. -2- CRL.R.C. No.1774 OF 2009 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RATNA SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -3- CRL.R.C. No.1774 OF 2009 The Court made the following order: Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against judgment dated 22.10.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.168 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in confirming the judgment dated 02.04.2009 passed by the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in C.C.No.297 of 2008. 2. Petitioner was arrayed as an accused for charge under Section 420 IPC in Calendar Case No.297 of 2008 before the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under the same charge directing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The said order was challenged before the learned appellate Court but it was dismissed. Hence, the present revision case. 3. Brief fact of the prosecution is that: Accused was the president of Deenabandhu Service Organization having a current account with Andhra Bank, Kothapet Branch, Guntur. The said organization also runs a Balahitha School in Etukuru road. The said organization was getting funds from Project Director, National Child Labour Project, Guntur. The petitioner/accused is also having a savings account with State Bank of Hyderabad, Kothapet Branch, Guntur, bearing A/c.No.620335078136 in his name. From the said account, Bank authority -4- CRL.R.C. No.1774 OF 2009 had already issued a cheque book bearing leafs No.931861 to 931880. It is the allegation against the accused that the accused with a malafide intention got prepared a cheque bearing No.931868 in the name of the organization for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- affixing the stamp of Project Director, National Child Labour Project and signed the name of Project Director/PW.1 in the said cheque. Thereafter, accused presented the said cheque in Andhra Bank, Kothapet Branch for encashment on 09.02.2008 in the name of Deenabandhu Service Organization, with an intention to draw the amount. Andhra Bank sent the said cheque to the clearing house, in turn, the same was sent to State Bank of Hyderabad, Kothapet Branch. During verification of clearance, it was found that State Bank of Hyderabad does not have any account in the name of Project Director, National Child Labour Project. Thus, the said cheque was returned to the Andhra Bank. 4. The Manager of the said Bank of Hyderabad, Kothapet Branch, after consultation with the higher authority, reported the matter to the police. After thorough investigation, police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC in Crime No.14 of 2008 in turn the same was renumbered as C.C.No.297 of 2008 on the file of the learned Magistrate concerned where charge was framed under Section 420 IPC. During trial, the Project Director was deposed as PW.1 and other witnesses were also deposed as PWs.2 to 7. Several documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15. According to the report of FSL, it appears that the signature of PW.1 is not tallying with the alleged -5- CRL.R.C. No.1774 OF 2009 cheque/Ex.P1. Learned trial Court is of the view that though the Bank has sustained no wrongful loss or petitioner has not availed any wrongful gain but accused with intention to deceive the Bank authorities issued cheque. The offence of the accused was well proved to get the money transfer to his account under Deenabandhu Service Organization in Andhra Bank. Therefore, the cheque was issued with a malafide intention by petitioner. It is the observation of trial Court that the prosecution has successfully bring home the charge against petitioner that he had intention to cheat the Bank authorities, consequently, order of conviction was recorded. The order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court was under challenge before the appellate Court. Learned appellate Court in scanning and discussing the evidences is of the view that the prosecution clearly proves the intention of the accused in fabricating Ex.P1 (cheque). It is the observation of the learned appellate Court that the appellant does not disown being the president of Deenabandhu Service Organization and he does not deny the cheque being presented to his personal account. The dishonest intention of the accused was proved to defraud the Bank for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- Thus, the mens rea of the petitioner has been proved. It is observation of the learned appellate Court that the petitioner being accused should be punished for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC read with 511 IPC as the cheque is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Therefore, appeal was dismissed. -6- CRL.R.C. No.1774 OF 2009 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate confirmed by the learned appellate Court is improper. There is no wrongful gain of accused or wrongful loss to Bank. The ingredient of Section 420 IPC has not been proved. He further submits that the cheque book was issued in the name of the petitioner by the concerned Bank, cheque book never owned by PW.1/Project Director, National Child Labour Project. Thus, by signing in the cheque mentioning the name of the Project Director itself cannot be proved the criminal intention of the petitioner. Learned trial Court or learned appellate Court decided the case in wrong notion. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the accused has got prepared the cheque in the name of the Project Director, National Child Labour Project (PW.1) only with an intention to cheat the Bank. He further submits that the accused also signed the name of PW.1 over the said cheque/Ex.P1. The same was proved by the report of FSL (Ex.P.15). Thus, the prosecution has successfully got home the charge against the petitioner. There is no merit to entertain the criminal revision. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Though charge sheet was submitted by the police under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC, charge was framed under Section 420 IPC. To -7- CRL.R.C. No.1774 OF 2009 prove the charge under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients: 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. From above proportion, to establish the offence, prosecution has to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. are as follows:- i. the accused must have deceived the complainant by fraudulent or dishonest inducement; ii. by such inducement, the complainant must have delivered property to the accused; iii. the complainant would not have delivered such property, if he was not so induced; iv. By such inducement, complainant has suffered damages. 9. In this particular case, prosecution has placed Ex.P1/cheque leaf of State Bank of Hyderabad bearing Account No.SB620335078136. The account was standing in the name of petitioner/accused. If the case of the prosecution is taken to be true and though it was not denied by the accused that Ex.P1 was prepared by accused and seal was also affixed there, in -8- CRL.R.C. No.1774 OF 2009 considering the entire gamut of the matter, it appears that the accused being owner of the account has placed a cheque by signing it in name of other account holder. Admittedly, the signature over Ex.P1 can never be tallied by Bank as it is completed by different name. No amount can be disbursed from account on the basis of such cheque. Actually in this case no amount was transferred to any of the account by virtue of the cheque. Thus, there is no wrongful loss of the Bank or wrongful gain of the accused in this case. 10. Another ingredient, whether the petitioner had a malafide intention to cheat the Bank so that the money can be transferred to his account at Andhra Bank. Learned appellate Court is of the view that Ex.P15 clearly shows that the signature over Ex.P1 is not signature of PW.1 but it was prepared by accused. If there exist intention of the accused to cheat the Bank, he must place a cheque owned by PW.1 by forging signature of PW.1. The cheque leaf owned by accused cannot be used by himself to encash the amount owned by him to transfer the same in another account also owned by the organization over which, he is the president. To prove a malfide intention or mens rea, the prosecution has to prove that the accused in furtherance to criminal intent or guilty mind tried defraud a Bank, which may wrongful gain to him. A man of prudence cannot place a cheque owned by him through his Bank account by singing name of another person. The conduct of the accused may be termed as a mistake but not by causing any criminal intent or mens rea in this matter. Moreover, it further appears that -9- CRL.R.C. No.1774 OF 2009 money or property was not perceived by dint of said cheque. Thus the sole ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC has not been proved. In my view, learned trial Court and learned appellate Court, though they gone through material, but decided the issue illegally by finding the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 11. In the above observation, the Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned appellate Court is hereby set aside. 12. The petitioners are hereby acquitted from this case. 13. The sureties standing in their favour also released. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date : 09.09.2026 SPP -10- CRL.R.C. No.1774 OF 2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1774 of 2009 Dated 09.09.2026 SPP