1
CC No.212 of 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt B. Soujanya,
VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad.
Dated this the 25 th day of April, 2024
C.C.NO.212 OF 2018
Between :
The State of Telangana through SI of Police PS, Saidabad, Hyderabad.
...Complainant
//AND//
A1. Kommaraju Rajashekara Vara Prasad @ Vara Prasad, S/o. K. Venkata Hanumantha Rao, Age: 60 years, Occ: Private Employee and Chairman, R/o. H.No.1-9-312/E/9/13, Aachutha Reddy Marg, Road N.6, Beside Canal Vidya Nagar, Hyderabad.
A2. Kalavakolanu Venu Prasad Mangapathi @ Venu Prasad, S/o. K. Narasimha Rao, Age: 62 years, Occ: Private Employee and General Secretary, R/o. H.No.1-9-1113/28/3, Flat No.301, Urvee Apartments, Dayanand Nagar, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
A3. Ganji Shiva Kumar, S/o. Late G. Laxminarayana, Age: 57 years, Occ: Private Job and Vice Chairman, R/o. H.No.9-95, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Gajularamaram, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District.
A4. Rachakonda Anasuya, W/o. R. Venu Prasad, Age: 58 years, Occ: Housewife and Treasurer, H.No.1-9-1113/28/3, Flat No.301, Urvee Apartments, Dayanand Nagar, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
A5. Kasthuri Prasad, S/o. K. Madhusudhan Rao, Age: 56 years, Occ: Self Employee and Chairman of Woman's Wing, R/o. H.No.4-2-170/37, Road No.4, Gruhatara Colony, Alwal, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.
A6. Rekha Singh, W/o. Ravinder Singh, Age: 58 years, Occ: Woman's Wing Chairman, R/o. Flat No.504, ABR Residency, Sairam Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.
VII ACMM
2
CC No.212 of 2018
A7. Ravinder Singh -- Died [A7 died. Hence, case against A7 is abated] ..... A1 to A6 [
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the
presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri
L. Ravinder, Counsel for A1, Smt. B. Mamatha, Counsel for A2
and A4, Sri V. Ravi Kumar, Counsel for A3 and A5 and Sri M.
Naveen, Counsel for A6, and the matter having been stood
over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the
following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The Accused No.1 to 7 have stood charged for the offence punishable u/S 420 of IPC, in Cr.No.351 / 2016 of PS Saidabad.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 07.11.2016 at 8:00 pm, the de facto complainant, by name, Nenavath Sunitha, gave a report to police stating that about Six (06) months back, the members of one Committee of Human Rights and AIDS Society, for which the Chairman was Vara Prasad and General Secretary / Venu
Prasad, Vice Chairman / G.Shiva Kumar, Treasurers / T.Anasuya and
Kasturi Prasad, Woman's Wing Chairman / Rekha Singh and
Co-ordinator / Ravinder Singh. They collected the money from the parents of the poor students including the complainant for her three children who were studying in Geethanjali School on the pretext of providing scholarship of Rs.20,000/- to female students and
Rs.15000/- to male students. They have collected Rs.2100/- for each student from all of them who were nearly 210 students and the approximate amount by them was Rs.5 lakhs. The said Vara Prasad,
Ravinder Singh and Rekha Singh have collected the money from all of
VII ACMM
3
CC No.212 of 2018
them at the house of Mekala Yadamma at Singareni Colony and sent cheques to the school and the said cheques were presented in the bank, they were dishonoured. Then they went to the office of the said
Committee for Human Rights Protection and AIDS Eradication at
Vidyanagar and they found the office was closed. As such, all the accused persons have cheated them.
3. Basing on the above report, LW19 / A. Rajender, SI of Police, PS
Saidabad, Hyderabad, has registered a case in Cr.No.351 / 2016, for the offence punishable u/S.420 of IPC and took up investigation. He examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW14, who are the victims in this case. Then he gave requisition to LW15 / K.Krishna,
Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, to furnish the bank account particulars of the Committee of Human Rights Protection and
AIDS Society, wherein LW15 has supplied a copy of the bank statement and also frozen the said account. He examined and recorded the statements of LW16 to LW18 who are the Principals of various schools and the said persons have deposited cheques issued on their school names. On 01.12.2016, A6 and A7 were released on station bail. On 17.12.2016, he issued 41-A Cr.P.C., notice to A2 to A5 and released them on bail. A1 approached the Hon'ble High Court and obtained the directions not arrest. After completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet.
4.This Court took cognizance for the offence u/S.420 of IPC. This court has furnished copies to A1 to A6 as contemplated u/Sec.207 of
Cr.P.C. A1 to A6 are examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by framing the charge and explained the contents of charge to them in their
VII ACMM
4
CC No.212 of 2018
vernacular language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW15 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.
6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A6 were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied all the incriminating material available against them in the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard both sides and perused the record.
8.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of A1
to A6, for the offence punishable u/S.420 of IPC, beyond all
reasonable doubt?
POINT:
9.Prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and got marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P13. PW1 is the de facto complainant and victim. PW2 to PW11 are also the victims. PW12 to PW14 are the Principals of various schools. PW15 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the Cheque bearing No.028025 dt.02.09.2016. Ex.P3 is the letter issued by accused organization, dt.18.05.2016. Ex.P4 is the FIR.
Ex.P5 is the bank account particulars of the committee along with the certified copy of Trust Deed vide Doc.No.265/IV/2011. Ex.P6 is the Statement of Account along with letter,dt.17.06.2017. Ex.P7 is the bank statement of organization of accused of Oriental Bank of
Commerce (OBC). Ex.P8 is the cheque bearing No.127289 dt.26.08.2016. Ex.P9 is the cheque return memo. Ex.P10 is the
VII ACMM
5
CC No.212 of 2018
cheque bearing No.028018 dt.29.07.2016 issued by accused. Ex.P11 are the receipts issued by the accused organization (14 Nos). Ex.P12 is the letter, dt.18.04.2016. Ex.P13 is the letter with no date.
10. The evidence of PW1 is that, about Eight (08) years back, A1 and A6 informed that there is one scheme for poor people under which if they pay Rs.2100/- per child, the government will give scholarship for girl child of Rs.20000/- and Rs.15000/- for boy child.
She paid Rs.6300/- for her three (03) children and they have not paid the school fees for Six months, thinking that they will get scholarship. A1 and A6 gave cheque but the cheque was not
honoured. Then they went to the office of A1 at Ramanthapur twice,
but the amount was not credited. Then they again went to the office it was closed. Then they went to the house of A1, but he was not allowed them. Then they gave report to police under Ex.P1 and that there are 10 more victims like her.
11. During the cross-examination, she deposed that her children were studying in Geethanjali School which is a private school and she do not remember their classes at that time. But the school fees was
Rs.20000/- for her daughter, Rs.15000/- for her son and Rs.10000/- fee for her another son. She do not know that the scholarships will be given to the merits and do not have any notification or pamphlet regarding the said scholarship. So also do not have any receipt for payment of Rs.6300/- and do not have any acknowledgment in proof of applying for scholarship. No one approached from their school and the cheques were given on the names of three children by A1, A6
VII ACMM
6
CC No.212 of 2018
and A7 at her house. She came to know their names through her neighbour / Yadamma / LW4. She do not know them personally. the cheques were given by LW4. She do not know who signed on them or on whose names they were given and again stated that the cheques were sent to schools directly. She do not know about the society and their purpose and said that some unknown persons took money from her on the name of said society and stated that she gave money to
A1, A6 and A7 at the house of LW4 in installments.
12. PW2 is one of the victim and his evidence before the court is that he came to the house of LW4 and asked LW4 why accused are coming to the house of LW4 and that LW4 said that the accused providing scholarships to girl students for Rs.20000/- and Rs.15000/- to boy students. He joined five (05) members for the said scholarships and gave Rs.2100/- for each student. They went to the office of accused at Vidyanagar, namely, Committe for Human Rights and AIDS Eradication. He worked for the accused for 31/2 months.
They have not given any salary to him. They promised him to give
Rs.7500/- per month. His job allotment was to go to certain schools selected by them and to get the signature of Principal and stamp of the school on the printed form. He collected the same and gave it to
A1. He left the job after five months and then all went to police station and gave report. The accused neither returned his money nor paid him his salary.
13. During his cross-examination, he admitted that the said
Committee is not meant for giving scholarship to school children. He
VII ACMM
7
CC No.212 of 2018
can say the names of children but not their schools. The children are all his cousins. He has not given any receipts for payment of money nor have any document in proof of the appointment made by accused regarding the scholarships. He did not get any appointment order from the accused. But there was no specific name for his post and it was marketing. He has not submitted the attendance register of the accused and do not have any document in proof of his job. He joined the job through LW4 and also worked for the accused. They have not issued any receipts for the money collected and denied to other suggestions as well as omissions.
14. PW3 is the crucial witness in this case. She has joined several people of her colony. Her evidence before the court is that, in the year 2016, A6 told her that they are working in Human Rights
Commission and if they pay Rs.2100/- per student, they will get scholarship. Believing her, PW3 paid Rs.2100/- each for both her children. A1, A6 and A7 came to her house. She also joined other neighbours who paid the amount and approximately 210 members joined from her side who paid all the amount and the said members stopped paying school fees, expecting the scholarships. A1 was the
Chairman and he has neither paid scholarship nor returned the money. He gave cheques to all of them and they got dishonoured.
She demanded A7 to give her money, he gave two cheques out of which one cheque was dishonoured and the other cheque was passed. They all went to the office of A1 which was closed. All the members were pressurizing for money to her, for which she sold away her house and moved away from there.
VII ACMM
8
CC No.212 of 2018
15. During the cross-examination, She deposed that she worked as Maid Servant as Aaya in Nursing Home and she had given the receipts issued by the accused. A1, A6 and A7 have not given any pamphlets or notification for the said scheme. She do not know that the scholarships will be given only to merit students. She had not filed any document in proof of education of her children. She also worked with the accused but there is no document in proof of her job. She worked for three months but they have not given any salary and denied to the omissions as well as suggestions.
16. PW4 is the another victim and her evidence before the court is that she had three children. In the year 2016, A1 and A7 came to the house of PW3 and informed about providing of scholarships to the school going children and that they will pay Rs.20000/- for girl child and Rs.15000/- for boy child. She had three children and paid
Rs.2100/- each towards her children. She waited for Six months and not paid the school fee for her daughter. Later they closed the office and not given any scholarship nor returned their money. Accused also stated that they are giving financial help to those who are economically backward and she trusted them.
17. During her cross-examination, she deposed that her children were studying in second and third class at that time at SMR school.
They gave receipts to police. At that time, the school fees of her children was Rs.2000/- per annum. She do not know that the scholarship will be given by government to merit students not
VII ACMM
9
CC No.212 of 2018
everyone. She gave the money to A1. A1 and A7 stated that the scholarships will be paid through cheques to the schools directly and that she gave all the documents regarding her children school education to police.
18. PW5 deposed that about 8 years back, three persons came to the house of PW3 saying that they will provide scholarships to her son, for which, she paid Rs.2100/- and they have not given any scholarship nor repaid the money. She gave the receipts to police and identified A1 present in the court. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she is the Maid Servant. Her son was studying in 7th class. Her son school fee might be Rs.20000/- at that time and she do not know that the scholarship will be given to merit students.
19. PW6 deposed that about 8 years back, A1 and A7 came to
Singareni Colony Huts and his son was studying in 1st class. They said that they will provide scholarship to his son as they belong to scheduled caste and asked to pay Rs.2100/- as process fee. They also assured to provide Rs.15000/- to his son and had it been a girl child and it would be Rs.20000/-. On believing the words, he had not paid the fee of his son and waited for one year. Later they found that the office was closed and the accused neither returned the money nor provided any scholarship and thereby cheated several others in their huts.
20. During the cross-examination, he deposed that PW3 only brought to the court and that he do granite work and his wages depend on work. He came to know about scholarship through A1 and
VII ACMM
10
CC No.212 of 2018
A7, but not seen in newspaper publication regarding the scholarship.
At that time his son was studying 1st class, but he has not given any bonafide certificate of his son. Accused has not given any receipt for the money. His son used to get B-Grade marks and he do not know the name of the office.
21. PW7 who is the another victim has deposed that about Six (06) years back, A1, A6 and A7 came to the house of PW3 and promised to provide scholarships to the school going children. She had one son and paid Rs.2100/- to A1 and A7. They said that they can provide scholarship of Rs.15000/- to his son and if it is a girl child they will provide Rs.20000/-. They waited for three months but no scholarship was paid to his son. Then they went to the office and it was closed. The accused neither returned the money nor provided any scholarship as promised by them and thereby cheated several other persons.
22. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she do house keeping and has not received any written summons, but came to know orally. PW3 also came to the court along with her, but she came only on the information of SI of Police. Further she came to know about the scholarship through A7 and that her son was in second class at that time. She had not given bonafide certificate and handed over the receipts to police which was given by A1. She know some of the persons who are the victims and has not gone to the office of the accused.
VII ACMM
11
CC No.212 of 2018
23. PW8 deposed that in the year 2016, A1, A6 and A7 came to their colony and said that they will help their children, for which they have to pay the money and that the accused will pay the fees.
She had one daughter and one son and paid Rs.4200/- to A1, A6 and
A7 for both of her children. They waited for them to pay the school fees, but the said persons not paid any fees nor returned the money.
Then they went to their office which was closed. She identified A1,
A6 before the court. In her cross-examination, she stated that she came with PW3 to the court who was present outside the court hall.
She gave the amount in the hands of A1, A6 and A7 who came there to the house of PW3. She had not taken any receipt for the amount paid. At that time, her children were studying in 9th and 10th class and the percentage of children was more than 70 %. She paid the school fees of Rs.16000/- and Rs.18000/- of her children who were studying in Vignanajyothi School. She has not gone to the office of the accused and the she knew A7 only.
24. PW9 deposed that about 8 years back, A1 and A7 came to their colony to the house of PW3 saying that they will provide scholarship to the school going children, for which, they have to pay
Rs.2000/- and Rs.100/- for application form. She paid for her daughter who was studying 1st class at that time and that the accused said they will pay the fees. They waited for them to pay the school fees but it was not paid nor the money was returned. She along with several others paid the money and identified A1 in the court. She also deposed that she came to court with PW3 who was
VII ACMM
12
CC No.212 of 2018
present outside the court hall and admitted that the above accused came to the house of PW3 and she has not taken any receipts for the amount paid and denied to other suggestions.
25. The evidence of PW10 is that about 8 years back, A1 and A7 came to their colony to the house of PW3 and said that they provide scholarship to the school going children, for which, they have to pay
Rs.2000/- and Rs.100/- for form. PW10 has paid Rs.4200/- for her two children. The said persons said that they will pay the fees, as such they waited for them to pay the school fees for three months. But the said persons have not paid any fees nor returned the money. She along with several others have paid the money. She identified A1 in the court. During the cross-examination, she deposed that she has not come to the court with PW3 but came on receipt of summons.
She gave the amount in the hands of those Sirs who came to her and further admitted that the above accused persons only came to the house of PW3. She has not taken any receipts for the amounts paid.
26. PW11 is another victim and her evidence before the court is that about 8 years back, A1 and A7 came to the house of PW3 in their colony and said that they will provide scholarship to the school going children, for which, they have to pay Rs.2000/- and Rs.100/- for form. She paid Rs.2100/- and the accused said that they will pay the school fees. They waited for them to pay the school fees for three months, but they have not paid the fees nor returned the money. She along with several others have paid the same and identified A1
before the court. She also admitted that she has not come along with
VII ACMM
13
CC No.212 of 2018
PW3 to the court but came on receipt of summons by police for 3 or 4 times and admitted that she handed over the money in the hands of accused in the house of PW3 and that she has not taken any receipt for the amount paid.
27. PW12 is the Principal of Geethanjali Vidyalaya School at
Saraswathi Nagar. Her evidence before the court is that in July 2016, two persons came to their school and introduced themselves as from
Human Rights Protection and AIDS Eradication. One of the person name is Vara Prasad and she do not remember the names of other persons. They said that they were providing scholarships to under privileged children @ Rs.20,000/- for female child and Rs.15000/- to male child. She has not entertained them and sent them away. Later she came to know from parents that they collected amount of
Rs.2000/- and odd, but not provided any scholarship and she identified A1 and another accused who came to her school before the court.
28. During the cross-examination, she stated that the said persons have shown ID cards, but they have not given any request letter and that they do not provide any scholarship with the help of
Aided Orgnaizations. She could not say the school fees of each class in 2016 as it differs every year and also admitted that the scholarships will be given to meritorious people as well as under privileged minority students. There is no scholarship policy in their school and canny say about the organization and other schools which provide scholarship. She has not spoken to A1 in the court premises
VII ACMM
14
CC No.212 of 2018
and do not remember the names of the parents who told that they gave Rs.2000/- to the accused.
29. PW13 was the In-charge Head Master of Megha City Grammar
High School at Gayatrinagar. Her evidence before the court is that in the year 2016, A1, A7 and 4 to 5 members came to their school saying that they belong to 'CHIRPA' which is Human Rights
Organization and that they will provide scholarship to poor children as their school was in slum area and the students also come from there. The said people told her that they can provide Rs.20000/- for girls and Rs.15000/- for boys. She made them to contact with the parents and the parents paid Rs.2100/- per students. Their school was not involved and the parents have paid directly. She identified
A1 and another accused person in the court and she cannot recollect the names of said persons.
30. Further, PW3 admitted that there is no written proposal offering to give scholarship and that their school has not provided any scholarship, so also admitted that the scholarships will be provided to meritorious and poor students. She do not know the fee structure in 2016. It could be Rs.12000/- or Rs.13000/- as she was incharge and said that the school fee differs from class to class. She informed 20 to 25 student parents who met the accused and she do not remember the names of those students. She had not filed any document in proof of her job in the said school.
31. PW14 was another Principal of Spark High School at
Santoshnagar. His evidence before the court is that he know A1 to A7 who came to their school in July, 2016 by saying that they are the
VII ACMM
15
CC No.212 of 2018
members of the Child Human Rights and AIDS Eradication
Organization and that they will provide scholarships to poor children and their school surrounded by slum area and the students also come from there. They said that they can provide Rs.20000/- for girl child and Rs.15000/- to boy child and that they agreed for the same and they came on next visit. He made them to contact with the parents who paid Rs.2000/- per student and the number of students were of 17. Accused also gave acknowledgment for the amount and issued one cheque for Rs.1 lakh on their school name dt.02.09.2016.
They deposited the said cheque which got dishonoured for insufficient funds. He handed over the said cheque to police which is marked under Ex.P2 and the letter issued by the accused organization under Ex.P3. He identified A1 with name and identified the other two accused in the court whose names he do not recollect.
32. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not given any ID proof for his post in the school as police have not asked him and admitted that letter heading of Ex.P3 is the committee for
Human Rights Protection and AIDS Eradication and that they have not given any Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the said committee. He selected the students basing on their financial back ground who belong to slum areas. He has not collected anything in writing about their financial assessment nor physically verified their position nor collected income certificate from the parents of those 17 students. He also do not remember the classes of those 17 students.
The said students have not applied for scholarships in writing. The letter which he given to the organization about the list of 17 students
VII ACMM
16
CC No.212 of 2018
is not given to police by him and admitted that Ex.P3 is for 14 students only. The names are in typed form and amounts in written form and admitted that Ex.P3 does not say that the scholarships will be provided to those who live in slums or financially poor persons.
The contents of the cheque might have been written by the accountant. He had not filed cheque return memo in proof of dishonour of cheque.
33. PW15 is the Investigating Officer and his evidence before the court is that he issued FIR under Ex.P4, recorded the statements of witnesses, collected bank account particulars of the accused
Committee under Ex.P5 and statement of accounts along with letter under Ex.P6, bank statement under Ex.P7, cheque under Ex.P8, cheque return memo under Ex.P9 and another cheque under Ex.P10, 14 receipts issued by the accused to the victims under Ex.P11 and two letters under Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. He arrested the accused and released on bail and filed chargesheet.
34. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 are the copies which were attested by PW13. He do not know whether CHRIPA is an Organization or Society or Trust. He has not enquired into the registration of the organization nor verified the office bearers as the office was locked. He has not conducted any observation panchanama nor collected any document regarding the organization. He also admitted that some of the receipts were signed and there were some corrections on some receipts. The cheques were given by PW3 which were issued on the name of school. He has not examined anyone from Narayana Techno School on whose name
VII ACMM
17
CC No.212 of 2018
Ex.P8 and Ex.P10 were issued. So also admitted that the receipts does not mention the reason for its issuance. He has not sent the cheques and receipts and letters to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparison of signatures nor collected any document to establish the parametres to provide the scholarships and denied to the rest of the suggestions.
35.During the course of arguments, the learned APP has argued that all the witnesses in this case have supported the case of prosecution and the prosecution could successfully elicited the oral evidence from PW1 to PW11 who are the victims and parents of the students on whose names the accused have collected money on the pretext of providing scholarships, so also the evidence of all the
Principals of various schools, who had deposed that the accused
have approached their schools and assured to provide scholarships to the poor children and that their schools are situated in slum areas where the students are from poor back ground. All the witnesses have identified the accused persons before the court and also the investigating officer has done proper investigation, collected all the required documents and proved the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed for conviction.
36. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused has submitted the arguments that there is no document to establish that the accused were running any organization, but took it from PW3. All the receipts were handed over by PW3 and which receipt belong to which student or parent is not known. Prosecution also failed to establish whether it is an Organization or Trust or Society or any body is not
VII ACMM
18
CC No.212 of 2018
known. Prosecution has also not established whether the said organization is existing or not. Except oral evidence, there is no documentary evidence to prove the same. PW12 to PW14 do not know from where the cheques were issued and that the cheques were not on the names of any of the school under Memorandum of
Understanding is present between schools and organization and the school staff failed to say the fee structure.
37. When the fee itself is Rs.12000/-, then how the scholarships can be given for Rs.50000/-. There is no confession, no seizure, no recovery from the accused and that police have not conducted any panchanama at the scene of offence nor examined any neighbour.
PW3 have shown the accused to the witness and that there is no Test
Identification Parade. Prosecution has failed to establish the identification of the accused properly. The accounts statement does not show who is authorized to sign and operate the account. The accounts statement does not reflect these payments and that the list of students was not given. There is no evidence against A2 and A4 and prosecution failed to establish as to how the organization is connected to scholarship. PW3 must have been made an accused in this case and that there is no evidence against the other accused persons, so also Section 34 IPC does not attract as there is no interconnection and that there are no stamps, seals and how the accused is related to the organization is not proved. The signatures were also not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the charge and prayed the court for acquittal.
VII ACMM
19
CC No.212 of 2018
38. The charge against A1 to A6 is u/S.420 of IPC, which prescribes punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
It reads as:
"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."
The essential ingredients of Section 420 of IPC"
(a) There must be dishonest intention;
(b) Cheating a person;
(c) To deliver any property or destroy or alter;
39.The allegation against all the accused persons is that all the accused persons have common intention to cheat the victims who are the parents of the school going children from slum areas and all the parents are rustic, illiterate people and that the accused have represented themselves as members of the Organization who provide scholarships to the students @ Rs.15000/- for male students and Rs.20000/- for female students on payment of Rs.2000/- towards processing fee and Rs.100/- towards application form. A1 to A7 have cheated LW1 to LW14 and approximately 210 students who paid
Rs.2100/- on anticipation of scholarship and that the accused
VII ACMM
20
CC No.212 of 2018
persons have neither provided scholarship nor returned the money and cheated the victims. Out of 210 students, only few parents have reported the matter to police and the same were examined by police as LW1 to LW14 and by prosecution as PW1 to PW11.
40. There are two types of cheating done by the accused, firstly all the accused persons have divided into groups and approached the parents of the students through school principals and also through
PW3 and have explained them that they are the representatives of 'CHIRPA' and that they induced PW1 to PW11 to part with an amount of Rs.2100/- per student in order to secure scholarship to their children and thereby cheated them by not providing scholarship nor returned the money. The second mode of cheating done by the accused especially A1 is engaged few persons out of those who paid the money as their employees and engaging them to bring more students or parents and to collect more money from them. Thus PW2 and PW3 have become the victims. In the same way others also. PW2 has joined several members and took money from them and paid to accused. He worked for five months as an employee, but A1 and other accused neither paid him salary nor provided scholarship to the children nor returned the money. The same thing also happened to
PW3 wherein she has joined several parents who pressurized her after the offence for money since she stood as a middle person and that she was forced to sell away her house and vacated that place.
41. PW1 to PW11 have clearly deposed before the court as to how each one of the accused have approached them, induced them
VII ACMM
21
CC No.212 of 2018
with dishonest intention and made them to believe that their organization will pay the entire school fees of their children. The defence taken by the accused is that the prosecution has failed to establish whether the organization alleged to have run by the accused is an organization or trust or society. The investigating officer had clearly stated in the evidence that the office was closed and he could not procured any document in support of the same. If really the accused company or organization is registered one having rules and regulations, then they would not have ventured to cheat the public. There is an intention by the accused from the inception of the crime. All the accused persons very well know that there is no organization but still they formed into one organization and published the letter heads.
42. Further, A1 to A6 induced themselves as Chairman, Vice
Chariman, Treasurer, Woman's Wing Chairman, Coordinator of
CHRIPA. All the victims are innocent, illiterate and rustic people.
They do not even know as to what for an organization for Human
Rights will form and do and they do not even know the AIDS
Eradication Programme and nothing to do with the children scholarships. PW1 to PW11 are also so illiterate enough to know that the scholarships will be provided only to the meritorious students by the government. If they really know all these facts then the question of believing the words of accused persons and giving the money does not arise. PW1 to PW11 had filed receipts in proof of parents of money to the accused. Here accused has taken the defence that prosecution has failed to establish as to who has taken those receipts
VII ACMM
22
CC No.212 of 2018
and that A1 is initially related. It is not necessary that A1 has to be a signatory for each and every document.
43. The other accused persons have done each role and one among the accused has signed on those receipts on behalf of A1.
When the chargesheet is filed against all the accused who colluded with each other and committed the offence. It is not necessary that each and every act must be done by each and every accused. The other important piece of evidence is that all the heads of the institutes ie., schools where the children of PW1 to PW11 were studying those witnesses have categorically deposed before the court that the accused persons have approached their schools and explained that they are providing scholarships, in which one school ie., PW12 has refused and sent them away. However, she came to know that some students of her met the accused independently at the house of PW3.
44. The cheques which were filed before the court under Ex.P2 was signed by one of the accused ie., A4 who posed herself to be
Treasurer. The signature in the capacity of chairman is very much tallies with A4 on Section 239 Cr.P.C., as well as 313 examination. It is not necessary that in each and every case, police have to follow the procedure u/S 45 of Indian Evidence Act, to seek expert opinion.
However, during the course of investigation, police could not secure the admitted signatures of the accused . As such, the same were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Even other wise also, the unshattered testimony of PW1 to PW14 had clearly established
before the court that all the accused have cheated PW1 to PW11.
VII ACMM
23
CC No.212 of 2018
Ex.P3 is the letter given in letter head of the accused's organization which was signed by A1 in the capacity of chairman by giving some random amounts to 14 students, saying that the scholarship for the academic year 2016-17. A1 made himself liable by signing on Ex.P3.
45. When the prosecution has established that all the amounts were credited into the account of accused organization, then the burden shifts to accused to establish that those amounts have nothing to do with the case facts or amounts involved in this case.
Ex.P5 is the letter given by branch manager freezing the amounts of the organization of the accused. So also they have given certified copy of the bank statement under Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. The accused have not explained as to how the money which was credited into the account of organization during the said relevant period. Ex.P8, Ex.P9,
Ex.P10 were signed by both A1 and A4 and the signatures very much tally at every place.
46. The receipts were issued on behalf of the accused's organization were also during the relevant period of 2016 and the receipts were on various dates pertaining to March and June which would be the starting of Academic Year. Ex.P12 is also stamped by A1 and the same is marked through PW15 which shows that the accused assured to provide scholarship to two students one parent @
Rs.13,500/- to each student. Ex.P13 is also the letter given by A1 and the same was marked through PW3 in the capacity of chairman asking PW5 to present the cheque after intimating the office. All this goes to show the transactions took place between the accused with
PW1 to PW11 so also PW12 to PW14 in one and the other way. If the
VII ACMM
24
CC No.212 of 2018
accused is genuine about the offence then it is the duty of the accused to explain that how the cheques were issued to PW10 to
PW14 and why the letters were submitted to them asking them to deposit the cheques duly intimating. There is no connection or nexus between the accused to the schools then what made the accused to issue cheques in favour of PW12 to PW14 and to send letters by saying that they are providing scholarships to the students studying in the schools of PW12 to PW14.
47. The defence is that the establishment of organization is not proved before the court cannot be taken into consideration as it is a fraudulent committee formed by the accused with a dishonest intention to cheat. As such, the said accused company is not expected to maintain any official record for the same. There is no document or evidence to prove that the accused has been running any organization except the evidence of PW1 to PW14 which is convincing and inspiring the confidence of the court. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. The court believes the evidence of PW1 to PW15 to be trustworthy and reliable.
48. The other defence is that nothing was mentioned in receipts is also not correct. The receipts which were marked under Ex.P13 clearly discloses the name of the students, date and issuance of receipts, parents name and the amount which is very much tally with the oral testimony of PW1 to PW11 and all the amounts were either
Rs.2100/- or multiple of Rs.2100/-. It is not necessary to establish and produce as to which receipts belongs to which student. There is
VII ACMM
25
CC No.212 of 2018
no particular criteria to establish a fact. It is also not important to prove any charge only with the documentary evidence. If the court believes that the oral testimony is sufficient to prove the charge, the same cannot be discarded. In this case, both oral as well as documentary evidence is available before the court. There is also no necessity for execution of Memorandum of Understanding between school and organization.
49. The other important defence is that the fee of the students itself is Rs.12000/- then the question of giving scholarships for
Rs.50000/- does not arise. As seen from the letters issued by the accused organization under Ex.P3, Ex.P12. It is very clear that they have issued letters for multiple students. As such, the amount which was mentioned was also for all those students in accumulated manner. The conducting of confession and seizure is not necessary in each case and it is the prerogative of the investigating officer as to how the investigation is to be done. similarly, there is no necessity to conduct scene of offence panchanama at the office of the accused as there are several schools and the accused have gone to the house of victims and committed the offence.
50. The Test Identification Parade (TIP) is also not a conclusive proof for identification of the accused. There was sufficient time for each of the victims to see the accused to the persons who visited their houses several times. Few of the witnesses have seen A6 and
A7 and few have seen A1, A6 and A7 and other people have seen the other accused persons. A3, A4 and A5 though they were not dealt with the witnesses or victims directly they were doing supportive role
VII ACMM
26
CC No.212 of 2018
and all of them are part of society. As such, each one of them are liable and it is false to say that there is no nexus between each of the accused in this case. The bank statements will not reflect about the authorized signatory on the statements. If the same is asked by
Investigating Officer, the same would have been issued by the bank.
But however, as seen from the cheques which were marked in the exhibits, A1 and A4 are authorized signatories in the capacity of
Chairman and Treasurer. This court is very much convinced with the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence placed before the court and that prosecution has established the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC and consequently proved the charge against A1 to A6.
Point is answered in favour of the prosecution. Accordingly, A1 to A6 are convicted.
51.In the result, A1 to A6 are found guilty for the offence punishable u/S.420 of IPC, and hence, convicted for the same charge under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to steno, transcribed by him, corrected, pronounced by me in open Court
on this the 25 th day of April, 2024.
VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
HYDERABAD.
When the A1 to A6 questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence:
A1 submitted that he has undergone bypass surgery.
A2 submitted that he has undergone Cardiac surgery and was in coma.
VII ACMM
27
CC No.212 of 2018
A3 submitted that he will prefer appeal.
A4 submitted that she is undergoing treatment for cancer.
A5 submitted that he would prefer appeal.
A6 submitted that she gave Rs.2 lakh to PW4 to delete her name from case but police not deleted.
The said reasons submitted by A1 to A6 is not mitigating circumstance to take lenient view as it is very common to have a family.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, wherein A1 and A2 have submitted that they have already undergone bypass surgery, heart surgery and A2 was in coma for three months post surgery, so also the submission made by A4 that she is undertaking treatment for cancer and that A6 submitted that she has nothing to do with the offence and the entire transactions were taken care by her husband / A7 who is no more and she further alleged against PW4 for taking money towards gratification of Rs.2 lakh. This court is of the opinion that in view of the health problems being suffered by A1, A2, A4 and mental agony being suffered by A6 that a sentence of one year would suffice in the above circumstance.
A1 to A6 are sentenced to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year for the offence punishable u/S 420 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two Months.
There is no remand period for the A1 to A6 to invoke Section 428 of
Cr.P.C.
VII ACMM
28
CC No.212 of 2018
A1 to A6 are informed about their right to appeal against the judgment of this court before the Hon’ble Sessions Court.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by
me in open Court on this the 25 th day of April, 2024.
VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution :- For Defence:- Nil
PW1 : N. Sunitha
PW2 : B. Mahender
PW3 : M. Yadamma
PW4 : C. Rajitha
PW5 : G. Aruna
PW6 : P. Madhu
PW7 : K. Laxmi
PW8 : K. Gopika
PW9 : N. Narsavva
PW10: D. Suvarna
PW11: A. Laxmi
PW12: Sree Laxmi
PW13: G. Latha
PW14: Ch. Nagender
PW15: A. Rajender, SI and IO
EXHIBITS MARKED
s
For Prosecution :- For Defence : Nil
Ex.P1 is the report.
Ex.P2 is the Cheque bearing No.028025 dt.02.09.2016.
Ex.P3 is the letter issued by accused organization, dt.18.05.2016. Ex.P4 is the FIR.
VII ACMM
29
CC No.212 of 2018
Ex.P5 is the bank account particulars of the committee along with the certified copy of Trust Deed vide Doc.No.265/IV/2011. Ex.P6 is the Statement of Account along with letter,dt.17.06.2017. Ex.P7 is the bank statement of organization of accused of Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC). Ex.P8 is the cheque bearing No.127289 dt.26.08.2016.
Ex.P9 is the cheque return memo.
Ex.P10 is the cheque bearing No.028018 dt.29.07.2016 issued by accused. Ex.P11 are the receipts issued by the accused organization (14 Nos).
Ex.P12 is the letter, dt.18.04.2016.
Ex.P13 is the letter with no date.
MOs Marked : Nil
VII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
HYDERABAD.
VII ACMM