1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: JAGGAIAHPET.
Present:- Smt. M.Sobha Rani,
ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM
ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAGGAIAHPET .
FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAIAHPET.
Thursday, dated this the 16th day of November, 2023.
Calender Case No. 01 / 2017.
Between:
The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of police,
Chillakallu Police station. ....Complainant
AND
1. Theerthala Venkateswara Rao, S/o Narasaiah, Hindu, aged 53 years, C/Kamma, R/o Anumanchipalli village of Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Buddi Narasimha Rao, S/o Somaiah, Hindu, aged 60 years, C/Kamma, R/o Gandrai village of Jaggaiahpet Mandal,Krishna District.
… Accused
This case is came up before me for final hearing on 29.08.2023 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/ Complainant and of Sri E.V.Jagannadha Rao, Learned Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2, upon perusal of record and hearing both the learned counsels and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Chillakallu police station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.100/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
(a)A1 is the partner and A2 is the Managing partner of Sri Sai
Yogananda Cold Storage situated at Anumanchipalli village of Jaggaiahpet
Mandal.
(b)LW.s 1 to 8 are the farmers of surrounding villages of
Jaggaiahpet and Nandigama Mandal, who raised chilly crops during the year 2011- 2012. A1 and A2 constructed Cold Storage under the name and 2 style of Sri Sai Yogananda Cold Storage at Anumanchipalli village of
Jaggaiahpet Mandal for the purpose of storage of Agricultural products like
Mirchi and other agricultural products.
(c)During the month of May, 2012, Lws 1 to 8 raised chilly crop entrusted to the accused Cold Storage to prevent the chilly bags from natural decoy to deep in the Cold Storage by paying rental to the accused as shown in the Cold Storage by paying rental to the accused as shown in the below.
No. of the witness citd asChilly bags of 50 KgsTotal Weight of the ChillyTotal cost of the Chilly per the charge sheetstored in the Coldbagsbags. Storage in the storage of accused by Lws.
LW.1660 bags34,125 Kgs19,01,270/-
LW.2665 bags39,900 Kgs21,94,500/-
LW.3581 bags27,000 Kgs15,55,125/-
LW.4578 bags28,000 Kgs15,93,000/-
LW.5781 bags39,050 Kgs19,52,500/-
LW.6740 bags37,100 Kgs20,40,500/-
LW.7594 bags35,640 Kgs19,00,000/-
LW.8384 bags19,200 Kgs10,56,000/-
Total4983 bags260,015 Kgs14,192,895/-
(d)The accused who are active partner of the Sri Sai Yogananda
Cold Storage look after the business of the cold storage with dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat the Lws.1 to 8 induced them to apply for loan with the State Bank of Hyderabad, Jaggaiahpet Branch, got arranged the loan to the Chilly Bags stored by LW.s 1 to 8, taken loan from the said bank on the security given by the accused by entering with tripartite agreement with the bank, paid meager amounts to the LW.s 1 to 8 after got withdrawn 3 the amounts from their accounts taken away the balance of amount by the accused.
(e)Thereafter, the accused dishonestly and fraudulently with an intention to cheat the LW.s 1 to 8 sold away the chilly bags entrusted by the
LW.s 1 to 8 to the accused cold Storage, clear the SBH Bank loan obtained by the LW.s 1 to 5, 7 and 8 at the behest of the accused, there by misappropriated the chilly bags entrusted by the Lws. 1 to 8.
(f)On 15.04.2013, LW.1 presented a report to the Superintendent of Police, Krishna, who in turn forwarded to the SHO Chillakallu Police,
LW.13/ASI of police, Chillakallu P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.100/2013, for the offence punishable U/sec. 406 and 420 of IPC, against the accused No. 1 and 2.
(g)During course of investigation, LW.14/S.I of police, took up further investigation, examined LW.s 1 to 11 and investigated into.
(h)Accused No.1 approached the Honble High Court of AP,
Hyderabad to obtained anticipatory bail, the Honble High court issued directions the Accused No.1 may surrender before the Trial court and move the trial court for grant of regular bail. In such an event, the trial court shall dispose of the bail application on the same day on which it is filed vide
Criminal Petition No. 4837 of 2013, Dt. 11.06.2013. Accordingly, on 12.06.2013 A1 surrendered before the Honble court of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Jaggaiahpet and enlarged on bail.
(g)LW.15/S.I of police, Chillakallu P.S. took up further investigation, examined LW.12, secured the documents, arrested A2 on 02.08.2013 and he is enlarged on bail in obedience to the orders of the Honble XVI Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama vide in Crl. M.P. No. 691/2013.
(h)After completion of investigation, LW.13/S.I of police, Chillakallu
P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/sec. 406 and 420 of IPC.
4
3. This case was taken on file against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.
4.On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5.Accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation leveled against them, for which they denied. A charge under
Section 409, 420 of IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the trial, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P24. The evidence of remaining witnesses i.e.,
LW.5/Bodepudi Rambabu, LW.8/Ummaneni Ramesh and LW.11/Seelam
Ramu was given up by learned APP.
7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, to which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
8.Heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
9.The Learned counsel for the accused submitted that there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there is no material on record to connect the accused that the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 406,420 of IPC and further deposed that there is a difference in between the evidence of prosecution witnesses. This case was foisted against the accused due to political influence, police filed this case against the accused persons through PW.1.
Hence, prayed to acquit the accused persons. Per contra, the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of PW.1 to PW.12 5 coupled with Exs.P1 to P24, would support the case of prosecution, therefore, accused are liable for conviction.
10.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT:-
11.DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF: In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which is also regarded as human right because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however strong it may be. Every person has a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to “proof” is an exercise particular to each case. The prosecution is required to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt. Here in this case, the claim of defence of accused are that one of total denial. In the first examination conducted under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and even in the second examination which was conducted after completion of evidence of prosecution under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the available incriminating material against them, the accused persons stood strongly on the claim that they are innocent of the alleged accusation.
12.As already stated the defence adduced no evidence on its behalf. Before proceeding with the point that whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused persons beyond doubt, it is appropriate to see the nature of evidence produced and the gist of testimonies of witnesses of prosecution. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited
Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.24.
6
13.To Substantiate the case of prosecution, LW.1 who is defacto- complainant examined as PW.1, deposed in his chief examination that, in the year 2012, he stored his Mirchi Crop consisting of 1800 quintals belong to him at Sri Sai Yogananda Cold Storage at Anumanchipalli village of
Jaggaiahpet Mandal, the cold storage belongs to Accused No.1. After some time, he went to Cold storage and asked the accused to show his chilly crop. Then he came to know that, A1 sold away the chilly crop due to chilly rates are hiked. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District. Ex.P1 is the compliant. Police examined him.
14.During course of cross examination, PW.1 admitted that, she did not mention the particulars of land, even in her complaint ie., Ex.P1 or in 161 Cr.P.C. statement. PW.1 given complaint to the Superintendent of police, after that for a period two or three months police examined her. PW.
1 taken loan from the bank by pledging the said 1800 quintals of mirchi crop. She did not pay the said loan to the bank till today. PW1 denied the suggestion that, she did not store the 1800 quintals of Mirchi crop at Sri said Yogananda cold Storage at Anumanchipalli village and A1 did not sold away the said crop, further denied that, she did not have a capacity as farmer yielding of 1800 quintals of Mirchi crop, to harass the accused foisted this false case against the accused.
15.PW.2 deposed that, in the year 2012, he had Mirchi crop and the yield was good, in that year the rate of the Mirchi was down, so he intend to kept 665 Kgs of Mirchi in the cold Storage by name Sri Sai
Yogananda Cold Storage. After one year he went to the Cold storage to sell the Mirchi and asked the A1 and A2 with regard to Mirchi, for which they answered, they themselves sold away the Mirchi. Thereafter, he along with
PW.1, LW.3/Sathyamba, LW.4/Vasantha and LW.7/K.Jayanthi Rao went to
Chillakallu police station and filed a complaint against the accused No.1 and 2. Police examined him.
7
16.During course of investigation, PW.2 admitted that, he had
Ac. 10.00 of Agricultural land at Mangollu village and it is his own land.
The approximate crop of Mirchi from his lands per Acre is 30 to 40 bags. He denied the suggestion that, he did not store the 665 bags of Mirchi in Sai
Yogananda Cold Storage. He did not handed over any proof of document to the police as he owned Ac.10.00 of land, he further denied the suggestion that, he along with LW.3, LW.4 and LW.7 were supplying the Mirchi bags from the farmers to A1 cold storage on commission basis and he filed this case against the accused, as there is dispute between them in regard to differences in commission. He filed this case against the A1 an A2 to gain wrongfully from A1 and A2.
17.PW.3 deposed that, in the year 2012, he had Mirchi crop and the yield was good, in that year the rate of the Mirchi was down, so he intend to kept 580 bags of Mirchi in the cold Storage by name Sri Sai
Yogananda Cold Storage. After one year he went to the Cold storage to sell the Mirchi and asked the A1 and A2 with regard to Mirchi, for which they answered, they themselves sold away the Mirchi. Thereafter, he along with
PW.1, PW.2, LW.4/Vasantha, LW.5/B.Rambabu, LW.7/K.Jayanthi Rao and
LW.8/U.Ramesh went to Chillakallu police station and filed a complaint against the Accused No.1 and 2. Police examined him.
18.During course of cross examination, PW.3 admitted that, he had
Ac.2.80 of Agricultural land at Pedda Modugupalli village and it is his own land. The approximate crop of Mirchi from his lands per Acre is 30 to 40 quintals. He denied the suggestion that, he did not store the 580 bags of
Mirchi in Sai Yogananda Cold Storage. He did not state before the police, that after one year they went to cold storage to sell the Mirchiand asked the
A1 and A2 with regard to Mirchi for which they answered they themselves sold away the Mirchi, he further denied the suggestion that, he along with
LW.4/Vasantha, LW.5/B.Rambabu, LW.7/K.Jayanthi Rao and LW.8/U.Ramesh 8 were supplying the Mirchi bags from the farmers to A1 cold storage on commission basis, there is a difference in commission, for that he filed this false case against the accused No.1 and 2.
19.PW.4 deposed that, in the year 2012, she cultivatd the chilli crop and stoe the same in the Yogananda Cld storage belongs to Accused No.1 and 2. The total chilli bags are 578. After one year they went to the cold storage to sell the mirchi, for which the owners of the Cold Storage ie., A1 and A2 replied that there are no chilli bags. Thereafter, she along with PW1 to PW.3 and LW.5/B.Rambabu filed a case against the accused No.1 an 2.
Police examined her.
20.During course of cross examination, PW.4 admitted that, she possess only Ac. 1.24 cens. She denied the suggestion that, she did not store 578 bags of Chilli crop in Sri Sai Yogananda Cold Storage which was belogs to accused, she did not go to cold storage after one year. She further denied the suggestion that, she along with PW.1 to PW.3 and
LW.5/B.Rambabu were supplying the Mirchi bags from the farmers to A1 cold storage on commission basis, there is a difference in commission, for that she filed this false case against the accused No.1 and 2.
21.PW.5 deposed that, in the year 2012, he had kept 740 chilli bags in the cold storage of A1 and A2. They have wrongfully misappropriated the said chilli bags by selling the same to third parties. One day he witnessed the lorries which are proceeding from the cold stoage with chilly bags load, not only the accused No.1 and 2 misappropriated his stock, but also of several persons. Later, he along with PW.1 to PW.4, LW.7 and LW.8 presented a report to the Chillakallu Police. He was examined by the police.
22.During course of cross examination, he admitted that, he cultivated chilli crop for the year 2011 and 2012 season. He owned of land
Ac. 3.07 cents. The Mirchi crop yield per acre nearly 40 quintals. He denied 9 the suggestion that, he along with PW.1 to PW.4 were supplying the Mirchi bags from the farmers to A1 cold storage on commission basis, there is a difference in commission, for that she filed this false case against the accused No.1 and 2.
23.PW.6 deposed that, in the year 2013, he kept his 500 bags of chillies in the cold storage of A1 an A2, there after, A1 and A2 sold the said chilli bags to third parties. Hence, himself and others presented a report to the S.I of police, chillakallu Police Station. Police examined him.
24.During course of cross examination, PW.6 admitted that, he had
Ac. 06.00 of land on his own. He denied the suggestion that, he cultivate the Subabul crop. He never kept 500 bags of Chillies in the Cold Storage of the accused No.1 and 2 and that they never sold away the chillies to the third parties. He further denied the suggestion that, he along with PW.1 to
PW.5 were supplying the Mirchi bags from the farmers to A1 cold storage on commission basis, there is a difference in commission, for that she filed this false case against the accused No.1 and 2.
25.PW.7 deposed that, at abouty 5 or 6 years ago, he was entrusted to transport the chilli bags of PW.1, PW.3, PW.4 to PW.6 to the cold storage of A1 and A2. Accordingly, he transported the Chilli bags to the cold storage inhis tractor. He was examined bny the police.
26.During course of cross examination, he admitted that, he is living by doing coolie works. Witness adds that, he worked as tractor driver.
He worked to conduct the agreement operation in the fields of PW.3 and
PW.5. he did not hand over any license to the police. He denied the suggestion that, he is not the tractor driver and at the instance of the PW.5 he worked in his field. He is deposing false and he never transported the chilli bags of PW.1, PW.3, PW.4 to PW.6 to the cold storage of the accused.
10
27.PW.8 deposed that, at about 5 years ago, he transported the chillies of PW.1, 3 to 6 in his tractor to the cold storage of A1 and A2. He was examined by the police.
28.During course of cross examination, he admitted that, he do not state before the police about the tractor number. He denied the suggestion that, he did not stated before the police, that he transported the chillies of
PW.4. he deposed false evidence, at the instance of PW.5 he used to work in his fields and he never transported the chillies to Yogananda Cold
Storage.
29.PW.9 deposed that, on 15.04.2013, he received written report through post. Basing on the report, he registered it as a case in
Cr.No.100/2013, U/Sec. 406,420 of IPC. Ex.P2 is the FIR. He forwarded the original FIR to the Honble Court and copies to the concerned officials.
30.During course of cross examination, he admitted that, he did not enclose, postal cover to show that he received the EX.P1/report through post. PW.1 did not present any report to him on 09.12.2012. He denied the suggestion that, at the instance of PW.1 he registered the Ex.P2/FIR.
31.PW.10 deposed that, in the month of May 2012, PW.s 1 to 6 ,
LW.s 5 and LW.8 obtained loan from their bank against the security bonds issued by A1 and A2 pertaining to the chilli commodity placed at Yogananda
Cold Storage. He furnished the account statements and other documents of
PW.1 to 6, LW.5/Rambabu and LW.8/Ramesh to the police. Ex.s P3 to P10 are the account statements. Ex.P11 is the true copy of instpection report of
Yogananda Cold Storage. Ex.P12 is the True copy of loan closure 12 in number. Ex.s P13 to P20 are the True copies of bonds pertaining to
Yogananda Cold Storage. Ex.21 to 23 are the True copy of Arrangement letters, application, Tri party agreement and other documents pertaining to
PW.5, PW.6 and LW.8/Ramesh. He was examined by the police.
11
32.During course of cross examination, he admitted that, he stated
before the police that the persons who obtained the loans have cleared the
same. He denied the suggestion that, he did not state before the police that he handed over the Ex.P3 to P23 to the police.
33.PW.11 deposed that, he worked as SI of police, Jaggaiahpet P.S and also In-charge to the S.I of police, Chillakallu P.S. from 15.04.2013 to 26.04.2013. on 15.04.2013, he took up investigation in this case. PW.9 handed over the Ex.P2/FIR. He visited to the scene of offence sitauted at
Yogananda cold Storage, Anumanchgipalli village of Jaggaiahpet Mandal, he got prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P24 is the rough sketch. He secured the presence of PW.1 to PW.4, LW.5/Rambabu examined and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. On 16.04.2023 he examined PW.5 and 6, LWS.8/Ramesh and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C.,
Statements. On 18.04.2023, he examined PW.8, LW.11/Ramu examined and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. On 20.04.2013, he addressed a letter to the Branch Manager, SBI, Jaggaiahpet call for the particulars of the loan pertaining to PW.1 to PW.6 and LW.5/Rambabu and LW.8/Ramesh.
Further investigation was conducted by his successor in office/LW.15 S.I of police.
34.During course of cross examination, he admitted that, he did not collect any documents to ascertain the lands of PW.s 1 to 6 and LW.5/
Rambabu and LW.8/Ramesh. PW.1 to 8 did not state before him about the alleged purchase of chillies from A1 and A2. PW.2 to 4 did not state before him that after one year of their placing the chilles in the cold storage of the accused, they visited to the said cold storage and that A1 and A2 informed them that they have sold away to third parties. Further he did not seize any documents from PW.7 and 8 to show that he has license to run the tractor.
12
35.PW.12 depsoed that, on 10.07.2013, he tookm up further investigation in this case. He visited SBH, Jaggaiahpet sedured the presence of PW.9/Manager of SBH, examined and recorded his statement
U/s 161 of Cr.P.C. he also addressed a letter to the Branch Manager to furnish the documents pertaining to this case, accordingly, he furnished
Ex.P3 to P23. On 02.08.2013, A2 surrendered before him. On the orders of Honble XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, he released A2 after obtaining sufficient solvencies. After conducting the investigation, he filed Charge sheet.
36During course of cross examination, he admitted that, the total number of chillies bags are 3,265. In Ex.P11, the date of column of 10.01.2023, it was mentioned as “ Visited the storage along with A.O and branch manager, stocks are adequate, this year crop is less pertinent opinion that rate may increase”. He did not examined the field officer of
SBH, Jaggaiahpet. PW.10 stated before him that the farmers who obtained the loan, have cleared the same and that one Vasireddy Santhosh/PW.5 did not cleared the loan. He did not conduct Panchanama at Cold Storage. He denied the suggestion that, due personal grudges, PW.s 1 to 5 and LW.5 filed this false case against the accused.
37.The Learned Assistant Public prosecutor argues that the evidence of PW.1 to Pw.12 can be considered to hold that the accused are punishable for the offence u/s. 406 & 420 IPC and they can be convicted.
38.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argues that the essential ingredients of Sec. 406 and 420 of IPC are absent in this case and that the prosecution witnesses failed to speak anything against these accused and the essential ingredients of Sec. 406 and 420 of IPC are not established in this case and therefore benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.
13
39.As seen from the case, there are 8 victims in this case. But 6 victims are examined by the prosecution. Even though they gone through the complaint that their mirchi crop ie. totally 1800 quintals of mirchi was kept in Sai Yogananda Cold storage at Anumanchipalli which is belongs to Al and later they came to know that Al sold away the chill crop as the chilli rates are hiked. As per PW. 1 to PW.4 they kept the their chillies in the year 2012 but as per PW.6 he kept the chillies in the year 2013. PW.1 to PW.6 did not hand over any proof of document to the police as they owned their respective lands. PW.1 admitted that he did not pay the said loan to the bank till today. But as per PW.10 who is the Branch Manager, State Bank of
Hyderabad, Jaggayyapet he stated that the victims had cleared their loans.
It is further noted that PW.5 admitted that after coming to know that accused sold away their chilli bags in the month of August and they presented the report in the month of December as matter not settled by the elders. But They gave complaint on 15.4.2013. (See Ex.P2). Even though
Pw.7 and PW.8 stated that they were entrusted to transport the chill bags of
PW.1. PW.3 to PW.6 to the cold storage of Al and A2, but it is the fact that the victims are kept their chilli bags in the cold storage of Al and A2 and the alleged case of victims is that Al and A2 had purchased their crop. If so, there is no proof that to whom Al and A2 sold away the said chilli bags.
More over PW.10 who is Branch Manager stated that PW.1 to Pw.6, LW.5 and LW.B obtained loans in the month of May, 2012 against the security bonds Issued by Al and A2 for which he issued loans to them and later the victims cleared the loan amounts except PW.5. Ex.P3 to P10 are the account statements. Ex.P11 is the true copy of Inspection report of Cold storage.
Ex.P12 is the true copy of loan closure 12 in number.
40.PW.11 is one of the Investigation officer admitted that he did not collect any documents to ascertain the lands of PW, I to PW.6, Lw.5 and
LW.8 and PW.1 to PW.8 did not state to him about the alleged purchasers of 14 chillies from Al and A2 and he further admitted that PW.2 to PW.4 did not state to him that after one year of their placing the chillies in the cold storage of the accused, they visited the said cold storage and that Al and A2
Informed them that they have sold away to third parties and he further admitted that he did not seize any documents from PW.7 and PW.8 to show that they have license to run the tractor.
41.As per another Investigation officer I.e. PW.12 who examined the
PW.10 and collected documents relating to this case and filed charge sheet in this case, he admitted in his cross examination that as seen from Ex.P11 in the date column of 10.1.2013, it was mentioned as "visited the storage along with A.O. and Branch Manager, stocks are adequate, this year crop is less, pertinent opinion that rate may increase" and he did not examine the field officer of State Bank of Hyderabad and he further admitted that except
PW.5 all the victims are cleared their loans and he further admitted that he did not conduct the panchanama at the cold storage and he did not obtain the terms and conditions pertaining to Ex.P13 to Ex. P20 and he could not ascertain the names of the persons that the accused have alleged to have sold the said stocks so also when they have sold the same.
42.Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Section 415 IPC.. The main ingredients of the offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: (ii) (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or (b) the person so 15 induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (i in cases covered by the second part of (i), the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property, Ram Jas v. State of U.P., (1970) 2 SCC 740:
1970 SCC (Cri) 516. Cheating can be committed in either of the two ways described in Section 415, IPC. "Deceiving a person is common in both the ways of cheating. A person deceived may be fraudulently or dishonestly induced to deliver any property or to consent to the retention of any property by any person. The person deceived may also be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not have done if not deceived and which act of his caused or was likely to cause damage or harm in body, mind. reputation or property, Kanumukkala Krishnamurthy v.
State of A.P., AIR 1965 SC 333.
43.Mulling over all these facts and circumstances, the evidence of
PW.10 to PW.12 is not corroborated with the evidence of PW.I to PW.6. It follows that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/s. 406 and 420 of IPC and both the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.
44. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 406, 420 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds the accused and their sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per under
Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of November, 2023.
Sd/- Smt. M.Sobha Rani
FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
JAGGAIAHPET.
16
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined:
For prosecution:For defence:
P.W.1/LW.1 : Vasireddy Uma Maheswari-None- P.W.2/LW.2 : Manne Appa Rao P.W.3/LW.3 : Vasireddy Satyamba P.W.4/LW.4 : Vasireddy Vasantha P.W.5/LW.6 : Vasireddy Santhosh Kumar P.W.6/LW.7 : Kanagala Jayanthi Rao P.W.7/LW.9 : Budda Gopala Rao P.W.8/LW.10 : Seelam Srinu P.W.9/LW.13 : R.Prasada Rao, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Chillakallu P.S. P.W.10/LW.12 :Rebba Pragada Jayanthi Rao P.W.11/LW.14 : J.Venkata Ramana, S.I of Police, Jaggaiahpet P.S. P.W.12/LW.15 : Sk. Abdul Nabi, S.I of Police, Chillakallu P.S.
Documents marked:
For prosecution:
Ex.P.1/dt.13.03.2013 : Report of PW.1 Ex.P.2/dt.15.04.2023 : F.I.R. Ex.P.3 to P.10 are account statements Ex.P.11 is the True copy of Inspection report of Yogananda Cold Storage Ex.P12 is the True copies of loan closure 12 in number. Ex.P13 to P.20 are True copies of bonds pertaining to Yogananda Cold Storage. Ex.P.21 to P.23 are the True copies of arrangement letters, application, Triparty agreement and other documents. Ex.P24 is the Rough Sketch.
For defence:
- Nil - Material objects marked:
For prosecution:For defence:
Nil-NIL-
Sd/- Smt. M.Sobha Rani
FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
JAGGAIAHPET.
17
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS AT JAGGAIAHPET.
C.C.No.01 of 2017.
Date of: Offence onComplaint Apph. ofReleasedCommencemeClosure ofResult or beforeaccusedon Bailnt of TrialTrial 13.03.2013 15.04.201312.06.13,12.06.1311.08.201621.08.2018 16.11.2023 02.08.13 Between: The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of police,
Chillakallu Police station. ....Complainant
AND
1. Theerthala Venkateswara Rao, S/o Narasaiah, Hindu, aged 53 years, C/Kamma, R/o Anumanchipalli village of Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Buddi Narasimha Rao, S/o Somaiah, Hindu, aged 60 years, C/Kamma, R/o Gandrai village of Jaggaiahpet Mandal,Krishna District.
… Accused
Offence:under Section 406,420 of IPC Plea of accused: Not guilty Finding: Found not guilty.
Sentence of Order : In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 406,420 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds the accused and their sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Explanation for the delay:
The case was taken on file under Section 406,420 of IPC. On 31.07.2015 case copies furnished to the accused. On 11.08.2016 accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charge under Section 406, 420 of IPC was framed against the accused, the same was explained, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. On 02.11.2017 PW.1, on 01.02.2018 PW.2, on 01.02.2018 PW.3, on 21.02.2018 PW.4, on 08.06.2018 PW.5 to PW.7, on 14.06.2018 PW.8, on 25.06.2018 PW.9, on 16.07.2018 PW.10, on 30.07.2018 PW.11 and on 13.08.2018 PW.12 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P24, the prosecution evidence was closed. On 21.08.2018, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material, for which, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. On 29.08.2023 heard arguments. On 16.11.2023 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.
Sd/- Smt. M.Sobha Rani
FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
JAGGAIAHPET.
Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to: The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Jaggaiahpet.