C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
1 of 19
IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT:: SMT. M.K. PADMAVATHI,
XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
HYDERABAD
Monday, the 16th day of May, 2022
C.C. No. 694 of 2015
Between :
The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad …… Complainant
And
A1) G. Srinivas Rao, S/o. Venkateswar Rao, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Promoter/Director, R/o. H.No. 10-2-289/56, Shanthi Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad
A2) Smt. G. Bharathi Devi, W/o. G. Srinivas Rao, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 10-2-289/56, Shanthi Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad …… Accused
This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Krishnaiah, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri S.M. Deshmjukh, Sri Vikranth Peddi, Sri Prakash Rao, Advocates for the accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No. 439/2013 for the offence punishable under section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
(i)On 20.06.2013 at about 19:00 hours, Lw.1- Sri B. Subba Reddy,
Managing Partner of M/s Vamsiram Builders, R/o. Flat No. 601, Jyothi
Estates, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad lodged a complaint stating that they
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
2 of 19 are carrying on business as the Developer and Realtor and their office is situated at Flat No. 601, Jyothi Estates, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad and in the year 2010, Sri G. Srinivas Rao (A1 herein) approached them introducing himself as the owner of house No. 8-2-293/82/A/476/A, Road
No.22, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and offered the said property for development. After several deliberations, they paid Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two crores only) as refundable security deposit in favour of
Smt.G.Bharathi Devi (legal owner of the above referred property) and entered into unregistered Development Agreement on 14.08.2010. Along with the above, Sri G. Srinivasa Rao came forward with proposals to give other properties on development to their firm and in the pretext of resolving issues related to the potential lands proposed to give to them for development, he took another sum of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four crores only) in cheque and cash on different dates acknowledging the payments linking with above referred property. They, being the
Developer, naturally look for potential lands and gave huge amounts as advances fully trusting him. With their regular follow up, they came to know that he was trying to cheat them and they requested him to refund the advances taken as he failed to give lands on development. With continuous follow up, he paid part amounts in installments and considerable amount is still due, on this account. At the time of entering into unregistered Development Agreement, Smt. G. Bharathi Devi promised to produce all the original documents and facilitate execution of the registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney.
Despite their several reminders, she did not come forward with originals and till date it is kept pending. As it was pending for long time, based on unregistered Development Agreement, complainant took possession of the land and started the development work on the site by erecting their name board etc. Immediately some third parties have tried to interfere
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
3 of 19 with their possession stating that Sri G. Srinivasa Rao and Smt. G.
Bharathi Devi, R/o. Plot No. 89, H.No. 10-2-289/56, Shanthi Nagar, Masab
Tank, Hyderabad are liable to pay huge amounts to them and that they have mortgaged the said property for availing the said loan and they also cautioned them not to proceed with any development work. As the matter stood thus, surprisingly they have received a Legal Notice from M/s Ganu & Co. Advocates. Through their Legal Notice dated 25.07.2011 issued on behalf of their clients M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation stating that their property at Road No. 22 bearing H.No. 8- 2293/82/A/476/A, admeasuring 1166 sq. yards, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad is under court attachment in O.S. No. 72/2010 on the file of III Addl. Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, apart from that the said company also initiated
criminal proceedings against both of them, which are pending and they were surprised to see such a Legal Notice. That apart, the State Bank of
India took possession of same property under SARFAESI Act, through an advocate commissioner appointed by the Hon’ble Court and now the
Property is under the attachment by the State Bank of India. Despite goodness to them, to their utter shock they tried to play kidnap drama through their daughters falsely quoting their names in Saifabad police station. These allegations are absolutely false and baseless and they never involved in such heinous acts. Thus both Mr. G. Srinivasa Rao and
Smt. G. Bharathi Devi have cheated them and played mischief and fraud on them for their wrongful gain. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.
(ii).Basing on the above complaint, Lw.2-Sri N. Tirupathi Rao, Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta registered a case in Crime No.439/2013 for the offence under section 420 read with 34 of IPC, issued F.I.R. and took up further investigation. During the course of investigation, Lw.2-N. Tirupathi
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
4 of 19
Rao, Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of Lw.1-B.
Subba Reddy. Lw.2 collected (i) copy of non-registered Development
Agreement-cum-GPA pertaining to the land bearing H.No. 8-2- 293/82/A/476/A, consisting of Cellar, ground, first and second floors with built up area of 28000 sft. Admeasuring 1166 sq. yards in survey no.
403/1 of Old Shaikpet, New 120 and survey No. 120/1 of Hakeempet village, Road No. 22, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, (ii) copy of Ledger Accounts of Vamsi Ram Builders in the name of G. Srinivas and G. Bharathi Devi,
(iii) Andhra Bank statement of M/s Vamsi Ram Buildings showing withdrawals by the accused persons, (iv) copy of the legal notice dated 25.07.2011 received by Lw.1 company, in respect to the accused property, (vi) Court notice got issued by State Bank of India, SAM Branch,
Secunderabad for the property under SARFAESI. A1 was produced before this Court on execution of P.T. Warrant on 24.12.2013 and accordingly, he was remanded to judicial custody. A2 obtained anticipatory bail and surrendered before Lw.3-D.Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.
Panjagutta and thereafter she was released on bail on furnishing sufficient sureties. After completion of investigation and after collecting relevant documents, charge sheet was filed against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3.This Court had taken cognizance of the offence under section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Accused No.1 and 2 and issued the process.
4.On appearance of the Accused No.1 and 2 before this Court, copies of documents were supplied to them as contemplated under section 207
Cr.P.C.
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
5 of 19
5.The accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.
After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence
Counsel, a charge under section 420 read with 34 of IPC has been framed against the accused No.1 and 2, read over and explained to them. The accused No.1 and 2 denied the accusation levelled against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.
Evidence brought on record by the prosecution:
6.In order to substantiate the said charge, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7.
Evidence brought on record by accused:
7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 and 2 denied the incriminating material put to them. However, on behalf of the Defence, Dws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.D1 to D8 document.
Arguments:
8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence
Counsel.
8(i).The learned APP argued that the prosecution by adducing both oral and documentary evidence categorically established the guilt of accused
No.1 and 2 and prayed to convict them as per law.
8(ii). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 argued that accused have not committed any alleged offense, and that
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
6 of 19 they are innocent and falsely impleaded in this case and he accordingly prayed to acquit the accused by extending benefit of doubt.
9.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved its case against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 420 read with 34 of IPC or not?”
POINT:
10.The prosecution contended that A1 and A2 cheated the de facto complainant by making a false promise that they would give their lands for development and that A2 entered into a Development Agreement- cum-GPA on 14.08.2010 with the de facto complainant and received Rs. 2 crores towards interest free security deposit. Further, A1 has also taken
Rs. 03 crores by promising that he will give other potential lands for development to Lw.1’s company and thereby, A1 and A2 cheated the complainant's company by not giving the lands for development, and didn’t reveal the fact of mortgaging the lands to the State Bank of India.
Thereby prosecution claimed that A1 & A2 have committed an offence punishable under section 420 read with 34 of IPC.
11.To prove the offence under section 420 of IPC, first of all the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients:-
1. There must be deception, i.e., the accused must have deceived someone;
2. That by the said deception the accused must induce a person.
a. to deliver any property; or
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
7 of 19 b. to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property.
3. That the accused did so dishonestly.
For a person to be convicted u/S 420 of IPC, it has to establish that not only that he has cheated someone, but also that by doing so he has dishonestly induced the person to deliver any property etc.
12.In this case, the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused of the above-said offences, examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 documents. PW.1 is the de facto complainant, and Pws.2 to 4 are the
Investigating Officers who did an entire investigation in this case. The
Prosecution got marked Ex.P3 to P7 documents through Dws.1 and 2 on their admission. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the F.I.R, and Ex.P3 is the unregistered photostat copy of the Development Agreement-cum-GPA
dated 14.08.2010, got executed in between G. Bharathi Devi (A2) and M/s
Vamsiram Builders, Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the permission obtained by the builder for the construction of the house from GHMC and Exs.P5 to
P7 are the certified copies of the cash receipts dated 21.07.2010, 28.07.2010 and 30.07.2010 respectively.
Appreciation of evidence, discussion and reasons thereof:-
13.In this case, it is the main contention of the Defense Counsel that the accused have entered into the Development Agreement with the complainant for the construction of the five-storied building by demolishing the old structure. However, PW.1 could able to get permission only for three floors, but not for five floors. As such, they were forced to cancel the Development Agreement entered with the de facto complainant and also transferred back Rs. 02 crores. Defense counsel also contended that Dw1 received rupees 03 crore from the defacto
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
8 of 19 complainant towards furniture and fixtures for dismantling the building, but not for the development of any other property.
14.PW.1 – de facto complainant, in his evidence, testified that they are running a business in the name of Vamsiram Builders, and he is the
Managing Partner, A1 approached him for the development of his site located at Jubleehills, and he agreed and paid an advance of Rs. 2 crores as a security deposit to A1. They also entered into an unregistered
Development Agreement on 14.08.2010. A2 also obtained permission from GHMC for the constructions, and he has borne the expenses for the above-said permission. After demolishing the proposed development old building, the accused asked to commence the work, and when PW1 asked the accused to show the original documents of the site and execute the
Development Agreement, the accused postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Meanwhile, the accused showed some other properties in Jubilee Hills and took a sum of Rs. 5 crores on the ground of development of the said property. The accused asked to commence the work without executing any Development Agreement, when they went to the site to commence the work they received a legal notice from the advocate wherein it mentioned that already the accused mortgaged the property to the Setco company and SBI. Hence, PW1 requested the accused either to return the advance amount taken or to clear up the above problem and hand over the site for development, but the accused postponed the same. PW.1 further stated that subsequently, they came to know that the accused similarly cheated several people and also the number of banks and number of cases is also pending against them. A1 also went to jail in CBI cases. He further stated subsequently the accused returned the first advance amount of Rs. 2 crores and also returned Rs.
75 Lakhs from the balance of Rs. 5 crores, and thereafter, he did not pay
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
9 of 19
Rs. 4 crores 25 Lakhs. As such, he went to the police station and filed the complaint under Ex.P1. He also stated that he filed a civil case for recovery of money against the accused and the same was pending before the civil Court.
14(i). The Counsel for the defense cross-examined PW.1 at length by giving various suggestions. PW.1, in his cross-examination, stated that they being the Developers, have developed more than 50 to 60 properties, and they have a separate legal wing. He further stated that
before taking any property for development, one legal department would
verify the legality of the property. He added that sometimes he used to take his own decisions while taking property for development. He further stated the property which he has taken for development belongs to
Bharathi Devi, and she purchased the same by virtue of the sale deed. He also admitted remitting Rs. 2 crores by A2 to his bank account. Further, the defense counsel cross-examined PW.1 at length by giving various suggestions, but nothing concrete was elicited from him to discredit his evidence.
15.As already discussed supra, in this case, it is the main contention of the Defense Counsel that they have entered into a Development
Agreement with the PW.1 for the construction of five floors. As PW.1 failed to obtain permission for the five floors, they were forced to cancel the
Development Agreement and remitted back Rs. 02 crores. This Court observed that the defense counsel did not give a single suggestion to
PW.1 mentioning the above facts and also mentioning the cancellation of the Development Agreement.
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
10 of 19
16.This court perused Ex.P3-photostat copy of the Development
Agreement dated 14.08.2010 and observed that on-page no. 2, unnumbered para no. 3, it was mentioned that “whereas the
Developer/Second Party who got vast experience in construction and development of the properties etc. had approached the First Party for development of the Schedule Property by constructing residential complex consisting of Cellar, Stilt + 3 upper floors therein with a ratio of 50:50”. Further in clause no.3, it was mentioned that “the Developer at his costs and expenses shall obtain the sanctioned Building Plan in the name of the owner from the GHMC/Government. The Developer undertakes to construct residential building complex in the Schedule
Property as per the sanctioned Plan/working plan and as per the specifications annexed herewith”. PW.1, in his cross-examination, admitted that they had agreed only for the construction of Cellar, Stilt + 3 upper floors despite the same, the Defense counsel did not give a single suggestion to Pw1 denying his statement. The defense counsel also not suggested to PW.1 that he, instead of obtaining permission for five floors obtained permission for three floors and the said reason, the accused has cancelled the development agreement. Likewise, a perusal of Ex.P4-the certified copy of GHMC permission reveals that it was obtained for the construction of a cellar, stilt and three floors and it bears the signatures of A2 and Pw1.
17.Similarly, the Defense Counsel did not give a single suggestion to
PW.1, stating that the amount received by A1 amounting to Rs. 4 crore is towards fixtures and furniture and dismantling of the property, but not for the development of other property.
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
11 of 19
18.It is the well-settled principle of law that the accused has the right to remain silent throughout the proceedings. It is also a well-settled principle of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved. In this case, A1 and A2 broke their silence and came forward to put forth their contention. A1 and A2 were examined as Dws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 to D8-documents.
19. Dw.1(A1), in his evidence, stated that in August 2010, he and his wife entered into a development agreement with the complainant to develop plot no. 476, admeasuring 1166 sq. yards, independent house, road No.22 and 21, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The complainant promised to construct five floors building by demolishing an old structure and advanced Rs. 2 crores to his wife. Later, he approached them and stated that he did not get permission for five floors building and he would construct three floors building only. As three floors building was already existing, they did not find any benefit to giving the plot for development.
As such, they decided to cancel the development agreement, and his wife remitted back Rs. 2 crores to the complainant on different dates through
Andhra Bank. Pw1 again approached them and requested to wait for some more days, but they cancelled the Development Agreement with him. By keeping the same grudge in his mind, Pw1 kidnapped him. During his illegal custody, Pw1 made him sign several cheques and white papers.
He also made him transfer Rs. 77,75,000/- to his account in SBH, IDBI and
Axis bank. Pw1 also forced him to withdraw Rs. Three crores and Rs.10
Lakhs from his office account. He threatened not to disclose the said incident to anyone and was directed not to file any complaint. In this regard, his daughters filed one criminal case at Saifabad police station.
Dw.1, to support his contention, filed Ex.D1- Bank account statement of
Andhra Bank, Karwan branch for the period from 2010 to 2014, Ex.D2 is
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
12 of 19 his Account statement for the account bearing No. 52083964451 of State of Bank of Hyderabad, Masab tank branch, Ex.D3 is the Account statement of Axis bank, Ex.D4 is the Account statement of IDBI Bank and
Ex.D5 is the office copy of the complaint dated 17.02.2014, that got issued to the Commissioner of Police.
20. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined Dw.1 at length. In the cross-examination, he categorically admitted that Ex.P3 is the photostat copy of Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated 14.08.2010, he also admitted on page no. 2, unnumbered para-3, there was a mention “whereas the developer/second party who got vast experience in construction and development of properties etc., had approached the first party for the development of the schedule property by constructing residential complex consisting of cellar, stilt plus three upper floors, herein with a ratio of 50:50”. Dw.1 further that as per Ex.P3, his wife received Rs. 2 crores from the builders vide cheque no. 875799 and 875800 of Andhra Bank. He also confessed that in Ex.P3, there is no mention of the construction of five floors. He also admitted that Ex.P4 is the building construction permission obtained by the builder for the cellar, stilt and three upper floors.
20(i). The learned Assitant Public Prosecutor suggested to Dw.1 that he, by making a false promise to give other properties for the development obtained Rs. Three crores from Pw1, for which DW1 pleaded ignorance, and he stated that he does not remember whether he received Rs. Three crores from the de facto complainant. The learned Assitant Public
Prosecutor confronted Ex.D1, Bank Statement of Dw.1, Andhra Bank,
Karwan branch to Dw.1, and after going through the same, DW1 admitted that he received Rs. Three crores from the de facto complainant on
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
13 of 19 21.07.2010, 29.07.2010 and 31.07.2010 respectively however, added that the above Rs. Three crores were paid by the de facto complainant towards furniture and fixtures for the dismantling of the building. As already discussed supra, the Defense Counsel failed to give a single suggestion PW.1 based on the cancellation of the development agreement and regarding payment of Rs. Three crores towards furniture and fixtures. Even otherwise, the fact remains that Ex.D1 categorically goes to show the payment of Rs. Three crores by Vamsiram builders to
Dw.1 herein. Even for the sake of the argument, if it is believed that Rs.
Three crores are paid towards furniture and fixtures for the dismantling of the building, but the said fact is entirely silent in Ex.P3 development agreement.
21. As already discussed supra, in Ex.P3, clause no.12, there is a reference that the first party(A2) agreed to dismantle the existing structure of cellar, ground, first and second floors, and agreed to hand over vacant possession to the second party(Pw1). Hence, a perusal of clause-12 of the Ex.P3, it is apparent that the first party(A2), agreed to dismantle the existing structure, but not the de facto complainant as contended by Dw.1.
22.In this case, though PW.1 in his evidence stated that he paid Rs. 5 crores to accused persons for the development of other properties, except proof for Rs. 3 crores, there is no evidence for payment of
additional two crores from PW.1.
23. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor suggested to Dw.1 that one
M/s Petro Electric Power Construction Corporation filed any suit against him vide O.S. 72/2010 and his property bearing No. 8-2-293/82/A/476/A,
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
14 of 19 in survey no. 403/1 of Shaikpet village attached by Hon’ble III Addl. Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for which pleaded ignorance. However,
he admitted that in the year 2010, his property was attached under
SARFAESI Act. This court perused Ex.D5-the certified copy of the complaint lodged by A1 herein to the Commissioner of Police. In para no.2, he stated that “at the time of the agreement, the property mortgaged with the State Bank of India for valuation of Rs. 10 crores and
Subba Reddy (PW1)was well aware of the said fact". Thus, the admission of Dw.1, coupled with Ex.D5 contents, establishes that on the date of entering into a development agreement, the Accused were not in the possession of the property, the same was mortgaged and attached with
State Bank of India. The accused persons even after knowing the property mortgaged with SBI and attached under SARFAESI Act, intentionally cheated the de facto complainant and entered into a development agreement, received Rs. 2 crores and further with a false promise to give other potential properties for development, received additional Rs. Three crores, and thereby caused monetary loss to the de facto complainant.
Though in Ex.D5, it was mentioned that the de facto complainant knew about the mortgage of the property, however, Ex.P3-Development
Agreement is entirely silent regarding that aspect. In addition to that
Ex.D5 complaint was lodged on 17.04.2014 after filing this complaint on 20.06.2013. Therefore, no reliance can be drawn on Ex.D5.
24.In this case, the Accused, further in support of his contention, examined A2 as Dw.2. She deposed that she owns plot no.476, admeasuring 1166 sq. yards, 3rd-floor independent house, Road No. 22 and 21, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. She further stated that on 14.08.2010, she entered into a development agreement with the complainant for the construction of the five-storied building by demolishing the old structure.
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
15 of 19
He also gave advance Rs. 2 crores to her towards an interest-free security deposit and Rs. Three crores towards furniture, imported sandal lights and fixtures in the said building. Two days after agreeing, the complainant approached her and told them that he would get permission only for three floors, not for five floors. As the complainant did not keep up his promise, they cancelled the development agreement and transferred
Rs.one crore to him from her husband’s bank account. Yet he requested them to wait for some more days, and he will try to get permission for five floors. Dw2 further stated that at the time of the agreement, they handed over the building to Pw1, and after a lapse of two months, he again approached them and stated that he did not get permission for five floors. In the meanwhile, he demolished the entire old structure. On 16.11.2010 they transferred Rs. 25 Lakhs, on 22.11.2010 transferred
Rs.50 Lakhs and on the same date again transferred Rs. 25 Lakhs to the bank account of Pw1, stating that they are cancelling the development agreement. Further, she deposed about the kidnapping of her husband by
PW.1 and forcibly obtained his signature on the blank cheque and transferred the amount. She further stated about the theft of four, four- wheeler vehicles by Pw1 and other facts.
24(i). The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined Dw.2 at length. In the cross-examination, she admitted that in para no.2 of Ex.D5, it was mentioned that at the time of the agreement, the property was mortgaged with the State of Bank of India for a valuation of Rs. 10 crores.
She also admitted that there is no mention in the Ex.P3 development agreement that Pw1 should pay Rs.three crores towards furniture and fixtures in their building. Yet, she admitted that under Exs.P5 to P7, her husband received Rs. Three crores from the de facto complainant. She also stated that they did not issue any legal notice to the de facto
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
16 of 19 complainant informing him about the cancellation of the development agreement. Also, she did not file any written complaint to RTO stating that the complainant had forcibly taken their four-wheeler vehicle. Alike, they did not file any civil suit for the recovery of the said four-wheelers.
As already discussed supra, the defense counsel did not give a single suggestion to Pw1 that they have entered into a Development Agreement for the construction of five floors building, also they did not suggest a single word to PW.1 regarding the payment of Rs. Three crores towards furniture and fixtures to their building, however, for the first time, they have raised the said contention in their evidence.
25.Dw.2, in her chief examination, stated that it is the de facto complainant who demolished the building, and the same is entirely contra to the contents of Ex.P3. As already discussed supra, in clause no.12 of
Ex.P3, it was mentioned that it is for the first party(A1) to dismantle the property, and after dismantling the property, they have to hand over the vacant property to the second party(Pw1) for development.
26.It is apparent from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that
A1 and A2 entered into a development agreement with the de facto complainant to develop the building situated at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and received Rs. Two crores towards interest-free security deposit. It is evident from Ex.D1 that Dw.1 received Rs. Three crores from the de facto complainant for the construction and development of other property.
Though Dws.1 and 2 stated that it was received towards furniture, imported lights and fixtures in the building, however, there was no proof for the same and Ex.P3 is entirely silent on that aspect. As already discussed supra, in this case, it is the contention of PW.1 that they have paid Rs. Five crores to A1 to develop some other property, but, except
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
17 of 19 proof of Rs. Three crores there is no proof for payment of other Rs. 2 crores to accused persons.
Conclusion:-
27.Therefore, in the light of above discussion, and from the evidence adduced by the prosecution and from the admission of Dws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.D5 and Exs.P2 to P7 documents, it is apparent that A1 and A2 cheated the de facto complainant by making a false promise that they would give their lands for development and that A2 entered into a
Development Agreement-cum-GPA(Ex.P3) on 14.08.2010 with the de facto complainant and received Rs. 2 crores towards interest free security deposit. Further, A1 has also taken Rs. 03 crores(EX.D1) by promising that he will give other potential lands for development to
Pw.1’s company and thereby, A1 and A2 cheated the Pw1 by not giving the lands for development as agreed, and didn’t reveal the fact of mortgaging the lands to the State Bank of India and attachment of the property under SARFAESI Act. Hence, the prosecution proved the ingredients covered under section 420 of IPC against A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
28(i). In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
(ii).A1 and A2 called absent. Hence issue NBWs against the accused persons and produce them before the Court for questioning on quantum of sentence. Call on 18.05.2022.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of May, 2022.
XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
HYDERABAD
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
18 of 19
Dt. 18.05.2022
29.A1 and A2 are present. Their counsel filed petition under section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. and the same is allowed.
29(i). The accused No.1 and 2 are heard on the question of sentence under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. They submitted that they are having two unmarried daughters and A2 is surffering with various health issues and if they sent to the jail, it affects their daughter’s future. Hence they requested to take a lenient view.
29(ii).In view of the nature of the offence, this court felt there is no reason to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in view of the submission of the accused No.1 and 2, a lenient view can be taken while punishing the accused.
30(i). IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 420 read with 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly, they are convicted for the same under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.and they are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and further they are setnenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, both the accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence under section 420 read with 34 of IPC.
(ii). The unmarked non-valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused are informed that they can avail the statutory right of appeal.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of May, 2022.
XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
HYDERABAD
C.C. No. 694/2015
Dt. 16.05.2022
19 of 19
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE
PW1 – Subba Reddy, (complainant) Dw.1 – G. Srinivas
PW2 – N. Tirupathi Rao, (Inspector of Police/IO) Dw.2 – G. Bharathi Devi
PW3 – D. Satyanarayana, (S.I. of Police/IO)
PW4 – K. Gurunath, (S.I. of Police/IO)
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.P1 – Complaint of PW.1
Ex.P2 – First Information Report
Ex.P3 - Photostat copy of Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated 14.08.2010 got executed in between G. Bharathi Devi (A2) and M/s Vamsiram Builders
Ex.P4 - Certified copy of permission obtained by builder for the construction of the house from GHMC
Exs.P5 - are the certified copies of the cash receipts dated to P7 21.07.2010, 28.07.2010 and 30.07.2010 respectively
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
Ex.D1 – Bank Statement of Dw.1, Andhra Bank, Karwan branch Ex.D2 – Bank statement of Dw.1 for the account bearing No. 52083964451 of State Bank of Hyderabad, Masabtank Branch Ex.D3 – Account statement of Dw.1 pertains to Axis bank Ex.D4 – Account statement of Dw.1 of IDBI Bank Ex.D5 – Office copy of complaint dated 17.02.2014 got issued to Commissioner of Police Ex.D6 – Copy of Account statement of G. Srinivas of Union Bank of India Ex.D7 – True copy of Sale Deed dated 10.03.2007 Ex.D8 – Certified copy of FIR in crime No. 313/2013 of P.S. Saifabad
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
- Nil -
XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
HYDERABAD