CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::
BADVEL
C.C.261 of 2018
DATE OF
Report of ApprehenCommenSentence ReleasedClose of OffenceComplainsion ofcementor on bailtrial taccusedof trialOrder A1-A1- 24.11.1624.11.16 16.03.1626.06.1603.10.2302.12.2406.12.24 A2, A3-A2, A3- 07.07.1621.07.16 Between: State represented by the Inspector of Police,
Porumamilla Circle, Kalasapadu Police Station...Complainant.
And
1. Shaik Guljar Begum, W/o Manthrala Ameer Basha, age 35 Years, Caste by Muslim, Computer operator cum accountant at MPDO office at Kalasapadu Mandal. R/o Vanipenta Village of Mydukur Mandal.
2. Thodeti Venkateswarulu, S/o Gangaiah, age 32 Years, R/o Mahaboob Nagar, behind RTC bus stand, Badvel, Native of Pedda Gopavaram Village, Gopavaram Mandal
3. Thejarla Anand, S/o T.Venkataiah, age 30 Years,Native of Vandadi Vlllage, Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R District, R/o D.No. 8-110/59, Ghandi puram Near, Padmavathi University, Avilala Post, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
…Accused No.1 to 3.
Offence: U/Sec.120 (B), 465, 403, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
Finding: Found not guilty.
Sentence of Order:
In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.465, 403, 471 and accused NO.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence Under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C., and they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.,
The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for six months U/Sec.437A
Cr.P.C., Cash of Rs. 1,64, 310/- is depositedinTermDeposit under M.O.1 with accrued interest i.e unclaimed property either by the complainant or accused though they suggested in the cross-examination as personal amount. They have not claimed the cash. Hence the same shall be confiscated after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2
CPU Hard disk Intex CPU with a serial number 0182028831805676 shall be returned to the P.W.24 after deleting the contents.
Sd/- Smt. B.Gayathri,
ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
BADVEL Copy submitted to:
The Hon’ble I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA for favour of information.
//TRUE COPY//
Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADVEL
Present: Smt. B.Gayathri,
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel
This the Friday, 6 th Day of December, Thousand and Twenty Four
C.C.No.261/2018
Between:
State represented by the Inspector of Police,
Porumamilla Circle, Kalasapadu Police Station...Complainant.
And
1. Shaik Guljar Begum, W/o Manthrala Ameer Basha, age 35 Years, Caste by
Muslim, Computer operator cum accountant at MPDO office at Kalasapadu Mandal.
R/o Vanipenta Village of Mydukur Mandal.
2. Thodeti Venkateswarulu, S/o Gangaiah, age 32 Years, R/o Mahaboob Nagar, behind RTC bus stand, Badvel, Native of Pedda Gopavaram Village, Gopavaram
Mandal
3. Thejarla Anand, S/o T.Venkataiah, age 30 Years,Native of Vandadi Vlllage,
Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R District, R/o D.No. 8-110/59, Ghandi puram Near,
Padmavathi University, Avilala Post, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
…Accused No.1 to 3.
This case came before me on 04-12-2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri
K.Babitha, Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused No.1 to 3, upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The Inspector of Police, Porumamilla Rural Circle has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.55/2016 of Kalsasaadu Police station for the offence under sections 120 B, 465, 471 403, 420 of Indian Penal Code. (“Here in short after referred as IPC for the sake of brevity”).
2.Shorn of unnecessary details the case of prosecution in nutshell which is as follows:-
Accused No.1 to 3 are close associates and they gathered themselves into a group and prepared a criminal conspiracy planned to knock away the amounts which was sanctioned by the government to the 21 beneficiaries by using 3rd parties bank accounts and cheated them. Prior to 16-03-2016 at MPDO office of Kalasapadu village and Mandal Accused No.1 who is the computer operator, accused No.2 who is working as Engineering consultant at MPDO office, Kalasapadu and accused NO.3 is
Henchmen of accused NO.1 and 2. During the year 2014 the government conducted enquiry and selected the beneficiary in the village to the sanctioned certain amount for construction of latrines to their respective houses and released the funds in the account of M.P.D.O office. Accused No.1 to 3 prepared conspiracy plan to knock away the amounts from the government account by transfer the amount to the accounts of 3rd party. As per their plan accused No.3 approached L.W.5 T.Vasu, L.W.6 P.Narayana
Venugopal, L.W.7 P.Anantha Lakshmi and taken their bank account numbers and given to accused No.1 and 2 to transfer the beneficiary amounts. Then accused No.1 and 2 have prepared fake documents and transferred the amounts 21 beneficiaries in the accounts of L.W.s5 to 7 and drawn amounts and used for their personal. L.W.1
MPDO made enquiry and found that accused No.1 to 3 committed fraud and misused by them. The complainant/V.Mallikarjuna lodged complaint that an amount of Rs.
1,64,310/- regarding 21 individual House Hold Latrine) payments in NREGS scheme was adjusted to the following account holders instead of the beneficiaries. 1. Thalasri
Vasu (L.W.5) account Number 32182984601, SBI, Puttur Branch to a tune of Rs.
31070/- 2. P.Venu Gopal (L.W.6) with the account bearing No. 3095223613, SBI,
Palamaneru to an amount of Rs. 73,620/-, 3. P.Anantha Lakshmi (L.W.8) bearing NO.
62332107548, SBH, Palamaneru, to an amount of Rs.59,620 total an amount of Rs.
1,64,310/- was misappropriated by the accused. As per the orders of the District
Collector, Kadapa, he has made the complaint against the above account holders and the accused nO.1 who is the computer operator also responsible for uploading the data. Basing on the report of L.W.1 a case in Crime No. 55/2016 Under Sections 465, 471,,403, 420 IPC registred by L.W.34 P.Nagendra Sub inspector of Police,
Kalasapadu P.S and he investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation of the case on 26-06-2016 L.W.35 K.N.Murthy secured the presence of
L.W.s1 to 4 and recorded their statements Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 28-09-2016 eh secured the presence of L.W5 and recorded his statement. On 29-06-2016 he secured the presence of L.W.s6 and 7 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 01-07-2016 he secured the presence of L.W.s8 to 17 and recorded their statements Under Section 161 Cr.P.C and on 02-07-2016 he secured the presence of L.Ws 18 to 28 and recorded their statements Under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
During the course of investigation on 07-072016 L.w.34 Nagendra has caught hold accused No.2 and 3 and interrogated them in the presence of L.W.30P.Chendrayudu and L.W.31 C.Venkateswarulu who are the mediators. They confessed about the commission of the offence that they took the account numbers of LWs. 5 to 7. On 29- 02-2016 accused NO.2 talked with accused No.1 and obtained user name and password relating to IHHL programme at MPDO office, kalasapadu. Again on 03-03- 2016 he used password and username of Accused No.1 and went to Muneer net centre and the above three bank account numbers for the Ids of 7 beneficiaries. On 16-03-2016 again accused No.2 used the user name and password and uploaded the three account numbers against Ids of 13 beneficiaries. He got transferred an amount of Rs.1,64,310/- to three account numbers. Accused NO.3 who is his friend withdrawn total amount and took an amount of Rs. 50,000/- being 30 % of the said amount and gave an amount of Rs.1,14,310/-. In the month of April, 2016 accused NO.1 was suspended from the service. Again on 23-06-2016 accused No.1 told to accused No.2 to divert IHHl amount of 21 Beneficiaries into separate accounts by using her user ID and password and requested accused No.1 to pay the same to the government to save her in social audit. L.W.1 suspected Accused No.1 to be responsible person for the offence and asked to keep the money ready. The accused No.2 gave an amount of
Rs.1,14,310 from his pocket and handed over to L.W.35 and an amount of Rs.
50,000/- was handed over to L.W.35 by accused NO.3 which he got withdrawn from three accounts. An amount of Rs.1,64,310/- was seized from the possession of accused NO.2 and 3 in the presence of mediators and accused NO.2 also confessed that he used to upload the details of 21 beneficiaries with fake account numbers and uploaded the information from internet centre and they are arrested and an amount of
Rs. 1,14,310 was seized from the possession of accused No.2 and an amount of
Rs.50,000/- was seized from the possession of accused No.3 under the cover of
Panchanama. He secured the presence of L.W.29 Shaik Muneer Abbas and seized the CPU under the cover of Mahazarnama in the presence of L.W.30 and L.W.31. A2 and A3 were remanded to judicial custody. Accused NO.1 obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble District Court. The Seized Hard Disc sent to TFSC, Hyderabad for examination and report and L.w.33 K.Narsimha Swamy expert after examining hard disc item No.1 gave opinion vide file No.CON/155/2016 dated 14-03-2018 and he opined that the data could not be retrieved from the hard disc and issued FSL report.
On 21-07-2016 L.W.32 Magistrate recorded the Section 164 Cr.P.C statements of
L.W.5 and 6, and after completion of investigation he handed over the case records to
L.W36 Madhusudhan Gowd after verification of investigation done by L.W.34 and
L.W.35 found it to be in proper lines and after completion of investigation he laid charge-sheet. Hence charge.
3.This court took cognizance against the accused for the offence under sections120 B, 465, 471 403, 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Under
Section 66 (c) of I.T.Act. On 24-07-2018.
4.After appearance of the accused NO.1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. on 11-07-2023
5.On 18-07-2023 accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/S.239 Cr.P.C., for which the accused denied the same. After hearing and perusing the entire record, a charge Under Sections 465, 403, 471 IPC against accused No.1 and 2 and a charge
Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code A1 to A3 and a charge Under Section 66 (c) of I.T,.Act against accused No.1 have been framed against the accused. The same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.
6.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined P.W.s1 to 29 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P25 and M.O.s1 and 2 are marked. The learned APP gave up the evidence of L.W.32, 33 and 36. L.W.s18 and 19 died and hence their evidence are closed basing on the report of the police. This court imposed several conditional orders hence the evidence of L.w.25 V.Saramma , L.W.27 P.Venkatamma.
7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 04-12-2024 accused
No.1 to 3 were examined Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of accused.
8.Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused.
9.Now the points for consideration are :
1) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable Under Section 465 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?
2) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable Under Section 403 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?
3) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable Under Section 471 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?
4) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable Under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?
5) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused No.1 for the offence punishable Under Section 66 (c) IT Act beyond all reasonable doubts?
10.The main accusation of prosecution against accused is that prior 16-06- 2016 accused No.1 being the computer operator forged document and misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,64,310/- pertaining to 21 beneficiaries allotted by the government and fraudulently used documents as genuine. Accused NO.1 to 3 induced 21 beneficiaries and cheated the government and delivered the amounts to
P.w.s 4 to 6 for the benefit of accused No.1 to 3 and accused No.1 being the computer operator dishonestly made use of electronic signature of M.P.D.O and uploaded the date and transferred the amount of RS.1,64, 310. Thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 465, 403, 471 and 420 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code and accused NO.1 thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 66 (c) of
I.T. Act.
11.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 29 out of 36 listed witnesses and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P25, PW1 is the then
V.Mallikarjun Reddy the then MPDO, Kalasapadu P.S who lodged complaint, P.W.2
P.Peer Basha who worked as Engineering consultant at Kalasapadu MPDO office during 23-12-2015 to 27-04-2016, P.W.3 Shaik Nayab Rasool worked as Senior mate at M.P.D.O office, Kalasapadu, PW.4 Vasu, P.W.5 P.Narayana Gopal, P.W.5 P.Anantha
Lakshmi who are said to be account holders in whose account the amount was credited by the accused, PW7 Y.Polamma, PW8 Kinnera Solmni, PW9 R.Ranga
Lakshmumma, PW19 Kinnera Sirisha, PW11 Sankavaram Kondaiah, PW12
U.Anjaneyulu, PW13 Y.Bala Obulesu, P.W.14 P.Ravanamma, P.W.15 B.Kondamma,
PW16 P.Ankamma, PW17 P. Ramulamma, PW18 P.Ranga Lakshmumma, P.W.19
K.Lakshmi Devi, P.W.20 T.Sundaramma, PW21 P.Obulamma, P.W.22U.Padmavathi,
P.W.23 P.Jayamma are the beneficiaries, P.W.24 Shaik Muneer is the computer operator,
12. Ex.P.1 is theComplaint of P.W.1 dated 26-06-2016, Ex.P.2 is teh IHLL report obtained from the computer, Ex.P.3 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4, Ex.P.4 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5, Ex.P.5 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6, Ex.P6 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.24, Ex.P7 is the Signature in Panchanama of P.W.25 dated 07-07-2016 at 1 PM, Ex.P8 is the Signature in property seizure Panchanama of P.W.25 dated 07-07-2016 at 05 PM, Ex.P9 is the
Signature in confessional Panchanama of P.W.25 dated 19-07-2016 at 03 PM at time of arrest of accused No.2, Ex.P10 is the Signature in Panchanama of P.W.26 dated 07-07-2016 at 1 PM, Ex.P11 is the Signature in property seizure Panchanama of
P.W.26 dated 07-07-2016 at 05 PM, Ex.P12 is the Signature of P.W.26 in confessional
Panchanama of P.W.26 dated 19-07-2016 t 03 PM at time of arrest of accused No.2.,
Ex.P13 is the FIR in Crime No.55/2016 of Kalasapadu P.S, Ex.P14 is the Letter addressed the Manager along with the statement of P.W.6, Ex.P15is the Letter addressed the Manager along with the statement of P.W.4, Ex.P16 is the Letter addressed the Manager along with the statement of P.W.5, Ex.P17 is the Panchanama
dated 07-07-2016 at 1 PM, Ex.P18 is the Seizure Panchanama dated 07-07-2016 at
5 PM , Ex.P19 is the Panchanama dated 07-07-2016, Ex.P19 is the confessional
Panchayathinama dated 19-07-2016, Ex.P20 is the Letter of advice, Ex.P21 is the
Letter of the court, Ex.P22 is the Requision filed before this court to record
Confessional satement of P.W.4, Ex.P23 is the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 along with summons, Ex.P24 is the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 along with summons, Ex.P25 is the Analysis Report
11.The case of the prosecution in brief as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses is as follows:- 13.(a). P.W.1 V.Mallikarjun reddy the then M.P.D.O deposed that from 2015 to 2016 government scehme i.e IHHL under NREGS scheme alloted an amount of Rs. 12,000/- for one beneficiary. Prior to 16-03-2016 tthe alloted amount was not credited into the account of beneficiaries which was alloted for construction of latrines to the respective houses and upon verification he found that it was credited to thrid party accounts who are not the beneficiaries and there are no records, nearly 21 beneficiaries amounts alloted by the government were not credited into the accounts of beneficiaries. He immediately informed the matter to P.W.27 and collector Kadapa through Mail on 15-03-2016. On 16-03-2016 One has not login into the government
ID by the computer operator i.e accused NO.1 and by one Sudhakar who is also computer operator. He also found that accused NO.1 opearated the government ID and uploaded teh amounts to the third parties who were not the beneficiaries. He enquired the accused NO.1 about the misuse of the amount through her ID and she stated that due to pressure of work she shared to password to P.W2 and 3 they might have used the amounts by using her ID and password. During the enquiry the amount of IHHL was credited into the accounts of P.Ws4 to 6 to a tune of Rs.1,64,310/-.
Immediately he lodged complaint against the responsible persons along with IHHL report obtained from the computer.
13 (b). P.W.2 P.Peer Basha who worked as Engineering consultant deposed that from 23-12-2015 to 27-04-2016 he worked at Kalasapadu M.P.D.O office he further deposed that the police asked about login and password details provided to him and he deposed that about the transactions while accused NO.1 was operating the account through login password. He further deposed that he came to know that the amount was transferred to three accounts and not to the beneficiaries by accused
No.1 and 2 and misapproriated an amount of Rs. 1,64,000/-.
13 (c). PW.3 Shaik Nayab Rasool, PW.7 Y.Polamma,, PW8 J,Salomi, PW.9
R.Ranga Lakshmumma, PW10 K.Sirisha, PW11 S.Kondaih, PW12 U.Anjaneyulu,
PW13 B.Bala Obulu, PW14 P.Ravanamma, PW15 R.Kondamma, PW16 P.Ankamma,
PW17 P.Ramulamma, PW18 P.Rangalakshumma, PW19 K.Lakshmi Devi, PW20
T.Sundaramma, PW21 P.Obulamma, PW22 U.Padmavathi, PW23 K.Jayamma are the beneficiaries categorically deposd that they complained before polcie about not crediting the amount in their accounts respectively which was alloted by the government for construction of latrines to their respective houses. During the cross- examination they stated that they came to know about the misappropriating of amount.
13 (d). PW.4 T.Vasu, PW.5 P.Narayana Gopal, PW.6 Anatha Lakshmi are the account holders in whose account said to have been transferred the government amounts categorically deposed that they don’t know any thing about this case. As they resiled from their statements they were cross-examined by the learned APP nothing was elicited against the accused. Except marking of their statements Under
Section 161 Cr.P,.C statements as Exhibits P3 to P5 nothing was elicited against the accused. Hence their evidence are not helpful tot he case of the prosecution.
13 (e) PW.24 Shaik Muneer Abbas who is running internet centre and M.O.2 was seized from his internet centre i.e M.O.2 categorically deposed that he don’t know any thing about this case. As he resiled from his statement cross-examined by the learned APP nothing was elicited against the accused. Except marking of their statement Under Section 161 Cr.P,.C statement as Exhibit P6 nothing was elicited against the accused and also registered the statement recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C., under exhibit P23.
13 (f) P.W.s24 P.Chendrayudu and P.W.25 C.Venkateswarulu who are said to be mediators at the time of seizeure of MO.s 1 and 2 and at the time of arrest of
Accused No.2 and 3 and also at the time of seizure of M.O.2 from the shop of P.W.24 categorically deposed that on 07-07-2016 at about 1 PM they went to Kalasapadu P.S and CI of police drafted panchanama with a recital that accused No.2 and 3 misappropriated amount by misusing the funds of NREGS scheme and cheated the beneficiaries and the governement. They affixed signatures in the Panchanama drated on 07-07-2016 at 1 PM, 05-00 PM and also obtained signatures on 19-07-2016 i.e confessional panchanama of accused NO.2. As they resiled from panchanamas they were cross-examined by the leaned APP and during the cross-examination nothing was elicited against the accused.
13 (g). P.W.27 K.Ramesh, who worked as Project Director , District Water
Management, Kadapa deposed that in the year 2016 his department sanctioned amount for 21 beneficiaries an amount of Rs.1,61,000/- for construction of latrines and after construction of the latrines the amount has been credited into teh account of beneficiaries as per norms and after recording In M.Book after getting verification fof engineering consultant. At that time accused NO.1 worked as computer operator, created 3 fake ID Accounts at SBI and credited those amounts into the acccounts of three fake accoutns instead of beneficiaries accounts. He further deposed that 21 beneficiaries who know about the allotting of amounts complained to him about not crediting into their accounts. He further deposed that he enquired P.w.1 and verified the SB accounts creted by accused No.1 adn credited the accounts into the binami accounts which were not concerned NREGS office. He ordered to register the complaint against the accused.
During the cross-examination he stated that without digital signature of P..W.1 the amounts cannot transfer to the beneficiaries. He stated that departmental enquiry was conducted but, no departmental enquiry report was filed before his court. He also admitted that he is not authority to take action against the accused.
13 (h). P.W.28 P.Nagendra the then Sub inspector of Police depsod that on 26- 06-2016 he received complaint from P.W.1. Basing on which he registered it as a case in Crime NO. 55/2016 Under Sections 465, 471, 403, 420 of IPC and he examined
P.W.1 in the police station and recorded their statements Under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
on 26-06-2016 he visited DWAMA office, kadapa and secured the presence of P.W.27 and examined him and also he visited Kethavaram village of Chapadu Mandal and secured the presence of P.W.2 and on the same day he visited Kalasapadu and secured the presence of P.W.3 and recorded their Statements Under Section 161
Cr.P.C. On 29-06-2016 he visited the palamenuru and secured the presence of P.W.s4 adn 5 and examined them and recorded their statements Under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
On 01-07-2016 he visited Reddipalli village of Kalasapadu Mandal and secured the presence of P.Ws7 to 9, P.W.18 to P.W.23 and PW.10 and recorded their statements
Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 02-07-2016 he visited Kalasapadu village and secured the presence of L.Ws 18 and 19 and recorded their statements. On 02-07-2016 he visited Chinthalapalli village and secured the presence of P.W.s11 and 12 and recorded their statements. On 03-07-2016 he visited Dulamvaripalli village of
Kalasapadu mandal and recorded the statements of P.W.s13 to PW17, LW25 recorded the statements. On 07-07-2016 after examining all the witnesses he added Section 66 (C ) of I.T.Act. He further deposed tha he addressed a letter to SBI, palamaneur
Branch, Tirupathi Branch, Puttur Branch and obtained the statements of P.W.s4 to 6
Under Exs.P14 to P16. He further deposed he assited P.W.29 in further investigation and at the time of seizure of cash and material objects i.e CPU and asited at the time of arrest of the accused and at the time of recording of confessional statements of the accused No.2 and 3.
During the cross-examination he stated that no documents are seized by him to show that P.w.1 delegated the powers to P.W.1 to disburse the amounts. He admitted that basing on Ex.P2 document and basing on the statements of P.W.s4 to 6 he concluded his investigation by fixing up the accused in this case. He also stated that basing on the statements of P.Ws.4 to 6 he came to know the amounts were wtihdrawn and handed over to accusedNO.2. he admitted that no bills are seized by him and no treasurey official was examined and no I.P.Address was mentioned in any of panchanama used by the accused.
13 (i). P.W.29 K.N.Murthy the the CI fo Police, Porumamilla P.S deposed that on 07-07-2016 at about 11 AM he received information from P.W.28 that he apprehended accused NO.2 and 3 he along with mediators i.e P.W.s25 and P.W.26 interrogated separately and they both confessed about the commission of offence and he seized an amount of Rs. 1,14,310 from the possession of accused NO.2 and an amount of Rs.
50,000/- was seized from the possession of accused NO.3 under the cover of Ex.P17 drated in the presence of P.W.s25 and 26 and it is marked as M.O.1 and at about 5
PM basing on the confessinal statement he examined P.W.24 who is running interent centre used by accused No.2 and seized M Disk Intex CPU with serial number 01828288131805676 was seized under the cover of Seizure Panchayatnama and it is marked as M.O.2. He further deposed that accused NO.2 was taken for police custody he was interrogated in the presence of P.W.s25 and P.W.26. He confessed that he used the username and password and sent the amounts of beneficiaries to the different acconts in order to use them for personal benefit. The same was recorded under the cover of Ex.P19 confessional panchanama dated 19-07-2016 and he filed requisition along with letter of advice to send the CPU which was seized from the possession of PW24 used by accused No.2. He further deposed that basing on
Ex.P22 requistion filed by him Section 164 Cr.p.C statements of P.W.4 and 5 are recorded Under Exhibits P23 and 24. Accused No.1 was released on anticipatory bail and after completion of investigation i.e after receiving analysisi report Under Ex.P25
L.W.36 verified investigation done by P.W.28 and himself and found it to be in proper lines and laid charge sheet.
During the cross-examination he admitted that except exhibits P17 to P19 documents not documents handed over to P.W.1 to connect the accused with this case. He admitted that he has not seized any bank accounts of P.W.s4 to P.W.6 and also he stated that no document is filed to show that they returned the amounts to accused No.2
14.The stand of the accused is not of total denial
15.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of
Pws. 1 to 29 coupled with Exs.P1 to P25 and M.O.s1 adn 2 clinchingly reveals that accused NO.1 and 2 forged the document and caused damage to the 21 beneficiaries and also dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,64,310/- whcih was alloted to the 21 beneficiaries by the government for construction of latrine to their respective houses and transferred to the accounts to P.W.s4 to 6 and fradulently used as genuine it to be forged documents and accused No.1 to 3 dishonestly induced the 21 beneficiaries to deliver an amount in the account of P.W.s4 to 6 and cheated the government and therefore, the prosecution established the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Section 465, 403, 471 and the prosecution established the guilt for the offence punishable Under 420 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal
Code. The learned A.P.P., further argued that though the independent witnesses including P.W.4 to 6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution,the seizure of M.O.s1 and 2 was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and hence prayed to convict the accused.
16.On the other hand, the counsel for accused argued that there is no material to prove the charges against the accused. The counsel for the accused further argued that the independent witnesses i.e., P.Ws.4 to 6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. There is no material on record to prove the seizure of M.O.1 Under Ex P17 and M.O.2 Under Exhibit P18 from the possession of accused No.2 and P.W.24 and he also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The counsel for accused argued that no treasury officer examined by the police and also there are lapses on the part of the investigating officer and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Basing on the doctrine of benefit of doubt.
17. POINT NO.1:-
In this case the accused is charged for the offences punishable
U/Sec.465,I.P.C.,ToattractSec.465and468 I.P.C., the main ingredients to be established is that the accused created false documents with intention to cause damage or injury to public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person or part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. In this case the prosecution failed to establish the above said ingredients. P.W.28 and P.W.29 in their cross-examination admitted that as per their investigation M.O.2 CPU was used by accused NO.2 in transferring the amounts alloted to the beneficiaries to the accounts of P.W.s4 to 6. The statements of P.W.s4 and 5 also recorded by the magistrate but the author of the same reslied from his statement Under Section 164 Cr.P.C which is not substantive piece of evidecne loses its value. The position of law is such that,
P.W.s4 and 5 who are the account holders in whose account the amounts are credited as per ExP17 and Ex.P18 conferred about the commission of offence turned hostile, disowned their statements. Hence their statements are contradictory which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further as per the cross-examination of P.W.27 who authorized P.w.1 in lodging complaint admitted that he was not authorised person to delegate the power to lodge complaint if it is so necessarily sanction orders are necessary. Further P.W.s28 and P.W.29 also admitted that they have not examined any treasury officer or they seized the bills which are said to be passed. He further admitted that as per his investigation by using MO.2 amounts were transferred but as per the evidence of P.W.29 who sent the M.O.2 to the expert opined that data could not be retrieved and nobody accrued any wrongful gain or nobody sustained any loss. He further admitted that the computer used by the accused No.2 which is used for internet by public. As per the case of prosecution the Investigating
Officer seized CPU Under M.O.2 from the PW.2. It is clearly appearing that the PW.24 is running a internet shop. Further apart from the accused there are some other staff who is maintaining the ID, password. Moreover nothing was seized from the possession of the accused No.1. In such circumstances there is possibility for using the ID and password by the staff at
MPDO office and further PW.1 and 27 admitted that without Biometric of them bills cannot be passed and further no treasury bills are seized by the P.W.s28 and P.W.29 which was passed. In such process there are chances for appearing some documents in M.O.2. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had dishonest intention to create documents. In this case as discussed above there is no material on record that the accused No.2 transferred the amounts to the accounts of P.W.4 to 4 by using M.O.2 but the same was sent to expert and he gave opinion that the data could not be retrieved and hence Ex.P29 is not useful to the case of the prosecution.
P.W.29 also admitted that he has not seized any bank accounts of P.W.s4 to
P.W.6 and also he stated that no document is filed to show that they returned the amounts to accused No.2. There is no scrap of paper on record to show that the the amounts were transferred by accused NO.2 by using M.O.2 with
ID and passwords of accused NO.1. Further P.W.27 admitted that Thus the prosecution has failed to prove an offence U/Sec.465 and 467 I.P.C., against the accused No.1 and 2.
Point NO.2
16.In order to bring home the guilt of accused for offence punishable under Section 403 and 409 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:- that the accused was a public servant;
i) he was interested with property or with dominion over the property in capacity as public servant; ii) he committed breach of trust in respect of such property by dishonestly mis appropriating ( Section 403 IPC ) the same or by converting the same to his own use. Herein the case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the accused is a public servant. Admittedly, accused No.1 is a computer operator and accused NO.2 is an enginerring consultant. According to the prosecution, the accused
No.1 was entrusted with duty to operate the computer but either P.W.s1,7 and P.W.28 and P.W.29 not adduced any evidence about the nature of duties alloted to them.
During the cross-examination P.W.27 and P.W.1 categorically admitted that without digital signature of P..W.1 the amounts cannot transfer to the beneficiaries. He stated that departmental enquiry was conducted but, no departmental enquiry report was filed before his court. P.W.27 also admitted that he is not authority to take action against the accused No.1 and 2. It is also the contention of the learned defence counsel that none of the beneficiaries gave written complaint against the accused and thus the accused cannot be said to have misappropriated any amount of the beneficiaries. Further P.W.s28 and P.W.29 failed to seize the passbooks of P.W.s4 and 6 and though Exhibits P14 to P16 are marked which are statements fo P.W.4 to 6 no bank official or tresury officer was examined and no document is filed that government alloted amount to the beneficiaries. The prosecution failed to prove with regard to alleged entrusting of amount and dishonestly msiappopriating the amount. Further nothing was seized frorm the possession of the accused. The benficiaries though examined they did not depose any thing against the accused. Further P.W.s28 and P.W.29 deposed that they have not examined anybody in the office of MPDO Kalasapadu and they have not visited M.P.D.O office and collected any document about the entrustment of duties passing bills.
17.For the foregoing reasons, the court holds that the prosecution has not established that the accused being the public servant was entrusted with an amount of
Rs.1,64,310/- and that accused NO.1 and accused No.2 had misappropriated, even temporarily, the same which he was duty bound to account for, which are the essential ingredients of Section 403 Indian Penal Code, beyond the reasonable doubt.
Accordingly point No.2 is answered againat the prosecution beyond and in favour of
Accused No.1 and 2.
18.POINT NO.3:-
To prove an offence U/Sec.471 I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove that the accused dishonestly or fraudulently used a forged document as a genuine with knowledge that it to be a forged one. In the present case the main allegation is that the accused No.1 along with two others used a bills fradulently and transferred into the accounts of P.W.s4 to 6 . But as discussed supra there is no material on record to show that the accused No.2 transferred the amounts by using ID and password into the accounts of P.W.s4 to6 and drawn by the accused basing on a forged bills ,
Though confessional statement of P.W.s4 and 5 are recorded by the Magistrate.
confession will be recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 and is not subject to the bar imposed by Section 162. Such a statement, being a previous statement, may be used only to contradict the person when he appears as a witness at the enquiry or trial of the offence or to corroborate him. P.W.s4 and 5 did not support the case of the prosecution. Moreover, PW28 and PW29 did not examined any treasury officer to allegation whether bills were passed or not. Which effects the case of the prosecution and it can be used to contradiction. Hence In such case offence U/Sec.471 I.P.C., is not proved against the accused. Accordingly, Point NO.3 is answered in favour of accused No.1 and 2.
19. To prove an offence U/Sec.420 I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish that the accused cheated someone and by doing so he has dishonestly induced the person who was cheated to deliver any property. In the present case it is not the case of prosecution that the accused approached the P.W.1 and induced him to deliver any property. It is the case of prosecution that accused NO.2 and in furtherance with common intention induced P.W.1 and also beneficiaries and used the amount alloted to them for construction of latrines to their houses. Though the beneficiaries were examined as P.W.3 , P.W.7 to 23 they did not depose specifically against the accused and moreover the amount seized from the posession of accused NO.2 and 3 in the presence of mediators i.e P.W.s 24 and P.W.25. But they categorically stated that at request of police they affixed their signatures in Ex. P17 and P18. They further stated that no body were arrested and nothing was seized in their presence. Further there is no recovery of any property from the accused No.1. Basing on confessional statement of accused NO.2 and accused NO.3 accused NO.1 was arrayed as accused Under
Ex.P17 and Ex.P18. Hence I am of the opinion that the Ex.P17 and 18 are no way useful to the case of prosecution as it is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act.
20.In this case the entire case is depending on the preliminary enquiry conducted by PW.1 and P.W.27. But surprisingly no such report was filed and got marked by the prosecution. In his Ex.P1, it is simply mentioned that the accused No.1 to 3 committed fraud in misappropriating the amounts of beneficiaries alloted by the government by using their ID and password without knowledge of P.W.1. But no documents relating to those allotment of amounts except the beneficiary list are placed on record. As per the contention of PW.1, accused misappropriated the funds by transfering the amonts to P.W.s4 to 6 and misappropriated the amount. But with regard to such allotment of amount not mentioned in Ex.P1. In the evidence of PW.1, he stated that during the course of his enquiry, it was revealed that the amount was not credited to the accounts of beneficiaries. In this case, the prosecution cross - examined Pws.3, 7 to 23 who are the independent witnesses to prove the fact that the government sanctioned amounts but the same was not credited int their accounts.
During the cross examination they failed to file any documents that the government alloted amount. Morevoer P.W.s4 to 6 also independent witnesses in whose accounts the amount was credited. But they turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Hence, there is no material on record to support the case of prosecution to prove the preiliminary enquiry conducted by PW.1 and P.W.27. Even no scrap of paper is placed on record to prove that the contents of preliminary enquiry as deposed by PW.1. Here it is pertinent to note that in Ex.P1 it is mentioned that his preliminary enquiry revealed that the accused) misappropriated the funds of beneficiaries. Basing on which material the prosecution come to the conclusion that Accused No.1 to 3 have not committed any offence and acused alone committed the ofence. The material on record is silent on that aspect. It is another important thing to note that PW.27 during his cross - examination by the counsel for the accused admitted he is not authorised to direct to lodge complaint. In such case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its contention. It is the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. But in this case due to admission of Ex.D1 portion in section 161 Cr.P.C., statement, moreover, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients for the offence under section 66(c) of IT act beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.
21.In the facts and circumstances of the present case without any support of documentary proof the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.27 coupled with Exhibits P1,
P14 to 16 are no way helpful to the case of prosecution. When delivery of property to the accused is not established by documentary evidence, any amount of oral evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution. There is no iota of evidence on record to link the accused to the case of prosecution.
22. In view of my above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. The point is answered accordingly.
23. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.465, 403, 471 and accused NO.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence Under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C., and they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.,
The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for six months U/Sec.437A
Cr.P.C., Cash of Rs. 1,64, 310/- is depositedinTermDeposit under M.O.1 with accrued interest i.e unclaimed property either by the complainant or accused though they suggested in the cross-examination as personal amount. They have not claimed the cash. Hence the same shall be confiscated after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2
CPU Hard disk Intex CPU with a serial number 0182028831805676 shall be returned to the P.W.24 after deleting the contents.
Typed by me on my personal Laptop, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open court on this day 06 th day of December, 2024.
Sd/- Smt. B.Gayathri,
Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Badvel
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION :
P.W.1:V.Mallikarjun Reddy
P.W.2:P.Peer Basha
P.W.3:Shaik Nayab Rasool
P.W.4:T.Vasu
P.W.5:P.Narayana Gopal
P.W.6:P.Anantha Lakshmi
P.W.7:Yerradesi Polamm
P.W.8:R.Ranga Lakshmumma
P.W.9:Kinnera Salomi
P.W.10:K.Sirisha
P.W.11:S.Kondaiah
P.W.12:U.Anjaneyulu
P.W.13:V. Bala Obulu
P.W.14:P.Ravanamma
P.W.15:R.Kondamma
P.W.16:P.Ankamma
P.w.17:P.Ramulamma
P.W.18:P.Rangalakshmumma
P.W.19: K.Lakshmi Devi
P.W.20:T.Sundaramma
P.W.21:P.Obulamma
P.W.22:U.Padmavathi
P.W.23:K.Jayamma
PW.24:Shaik Muneer
P.W.25:P.Chendrayudu ( mediator )
P.W.26:C.Venkateswarulu ( Mediator)
P.W.27:K.Ramesh ( Project Director , Water Management Agency)
P.W.28:P.Nagendra ( Then then SI of Police, kalasapadu)
P.W.29:K.N.Murthy ( SI of police )
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NONE
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
Ex.P.1:Complaint of P.W.1 dated 26-06-2016
Ex.P.2:IHLL report obtained from the computer
Ex.P.3:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.4:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.5:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6
Ex.P6:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.24
Ex.P7:Signature in Panchanama of P.W.25 dated 07-07-2016 at 1 PM
Ex.P8:Signature in property seizure Panchanama of P.W.25 dated 07-07-2016 at 05 PM.
Ex.P9 : Signature in confessional Panchanama of P.W.25 dated 19-07-2016 at 03 PM at time of arrest of accused No.2.
Ex.P10:Signature in Panchanama of P.W.26 dated 07-07-2016 at 1 PM
Ex.P11:Signature in property seizure Panchanama of P.W.26 dated 07-07-2016 at 05 PM
Ex.P12 : Signature of P.W.26 in confessional Panchanama of P.W.26
dated 19-07-2016 t 03 PM at time of arrest of accused No.2.
Ex.P13:First Information Report in Crime No.55/2016 of Kalasapadu P.S
Ex.P14:Letter addressed the Manager along with the statement of P.W.6
Ex.P15:Letter addressed the Manager along with the statement of P.W.4
Ex.P16:Letter addressed the Manager along with the statement of P.W.5
Ex.P17:Panchanama dated 07-07-2016 at 1 PM
Ex.P18: Seizure Panchanama dated 07-07-2016 at 5 PM
Ex.P19:confessional Panchayathinama dated 19-07-2016
Ex.P20 : Letter of advicse
Ex.P21 : Letter of the court
Ex.P22:Requision filed before this court to record Confessional statement of
P.W.4
Ex.P23 : Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 along with summons
Ex.P24 : Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 along with summons
Ex.P25:Analysis Report
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NONE
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :
M.O.1 cash of Rs. 1,64,310/- (Fixed deposited before this court).
M.O.2 : CPU Hard disk Intex CPU wih a serial number 0182028831805676
Sd/- Smt. B.G,
AJCJ, BDL
// TRUE COPY//
Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Badvel