C.C. No.397 of 2019 1 17-04-2025
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS: MOVVA.
Present: Sri P.Rajan Uday Prakash,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Movva.
Thursday, the Seventeenth day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five.
Calendar Case No. 397 of 2019
State represented by the Sub Inspector,
Challapalli police station. … Complainant.
Versus
1. Garikapudi Prasanth Babu, s/o.Appa Rao, 24 years, Ghantasala village and mandal.
2. Gorikapudi Appa Rao, s/o.Prabhakara Rao, 50 years, Ghantasala village and mandal. (Died) … Accused.
-oo00oo-
This case came before me on 07-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of
Sri Boppana Venkata Subrahmanyeswara Rao, learned counsel for the accused No.1, and the case against the accused No.2 having been abated, upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :
C.C. No.397 of 2019 2 17-04-2025
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Inspector of police, Challapalli police station filed the chargesheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime number 135/2017 of
Challapalli police station for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution:
The de facto complainant/PW-6/Lacavattula Naga Malleswara
Rao is a resident of Kasanagar, Pedaprolu village, Mopidevi mandal. The accused Nos.1 and 2 promised jobs to PW-6 and his brother/PW- 1/Lacavattula Tirumala Naik at the government hospital, Machilpatnam, and took amounts of Rs.50,000/- from PW-1 and Rs.48,800/- from PW-6.
The accused gave fake appointment orders to Pws.1 and 6. Upon coming to know the same, Pws.1 and 6 questioned the accused Nos.1 and 2, for which the accused Nos.1 and 6 threatened them. The accused cheated
Pws.1, 6 and the others and collected Rs.3,18,800/- from them and cheated them on the pretext of providing government jobs. In this connection, PW-
C.C. No.397 of 2019 3 17-04-2025
6 went to the police station and lodged written information. Basing on the information, PW-10/the Sub Inspector of police registered a case in crime number 135/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and investigated into it. After completion of the investigation, PW-10/the Sub Inspector of police, Challapalli police station filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused
Nos.1 and 2 and summons were issued to them.
4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused No.2 died and the case against him was abated on 27-04-2022. The accused No.1 was examined under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for which he denied the
C.C. No.397 of 2019 4 17-04-2025
accusations levied against him. Charges for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused
No.1. The charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same, pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried.
5.On behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 10 were examined and
Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. The evidence of LW-8/Yeleru Kameswara
Prasad was closed based on the report of the prosecution that his whereabouts were not known. Thus, the closure of the evidence of the prosecution.
6.After the completion of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused No.1 was examined under section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure by putting forth the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution.
The accused No.1 denied the incriminating circumstances. No evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused No.1.
7.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 5 17-04-2025
8.The points for determination are:
1. “Whether the accused No.1 cheated Pws.1 to 7 by collecting money from them on the pretext of providing government jobs to them ??”
2. “Whether the accused No.1 threatened to incriminate Pws.1 to 7 by committing suicide ??”
3. “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused
No.1 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 of Indian penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ??”
Point Nos.1 and 2:
9.A perusal of the record reveals that Pws.1 to 10 were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The record reveals that Pws.1 to 7 are stated to be the victims, Pws.8 and 9 are stated to be the mediators and PW-10 happens to be the investigating officer. A perusal of the written information given to the police/Ex.P1 by PW-6 reveals that according to it, PW-6/Naga
Malleswara Rao completed graduation and his brother Tirumala Naik/PW-
C.C. No.397 of 2019 6 17-04-2025
1 also completed graduation. PW-6 become acquainted with the accused
Nos.1 and 2 through some unknown persons. The accused No.1 is stated to have been working as a security guard in the government hospital,
Machilipatnam. As per Ex.P1, the accused Nos.1 and 2 promised Pws.1 and 6 that government jobs would be provided to them on payment of a certain sum of money. Believing the same, PW-1 paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in total on several occasions and PW-6 paid Rs.48,800/- for the job of an attendant in government hospital, Challapalli.
10.Ex.P1 further states that PW-3/Kanagala Srinivasa Rao paid
Rs.40,000/- for the post of a ward boy, PW-7/Songa Srinivasa Rao paid
Rs.30,000/- for the post of a personal secretary, PW-5/Naraharasetti Soma
Sekhar paid Rs.55,000/- for the post of a data entry operator, PW- 4/Jonnakoti Suresh paid Rs.30,000/- for the post of a compounder and PW- 2/Akkala Leela Babu paid Rs.65,000/- for the post of a compounder. In total, an amount of Rs.3,18,800/- was paid to the accused Nos.1 and 2.
Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are stated to have handed over fake joining letters to them for which the aforesaid persons including Pws.1 and
C.C. No.397 of 2019 7 17-04-2025
6 went to the government hospital to report for duty where it was found that the appointment letters were false and fabricated. Thereafter, Pws.1 to 7 approached the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the accused Nos.1 and 2 promised to return the money but postponed the same.
11.On 20-06-2017 at about 09:00 hours, Pws.1 to 7 went to the house of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for which the accused No.2 is stated to have threatened them by stating that the accused No.1 would commit suicide by mentioning their names. Thereafter, as per the advise of their acquaintance, on 03-07-2017, PW-6 approached the police and lodged
Ex.P1. Thus, according to Ex.P1, it is stated that the accused Nos.1 and 2 collected money from as many as seven persons by promising to provide government jobs. It is further stated that a total sum of Rs.3,18,800/- was paid by the victims to the accused Nos.1 and 2. Further, according to
Ex.P1, Pws.1 to 7 came to know that the appointment letters were fake and when they questioned the accused, the accused No.2 threatened them on 20-06-2017. Thereafter, PW-6 approached the police on 03-07-2017.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 8 17-04-2025
12.In his examination-in-chief, PW-6 deposed that he had acquaintance with the accused Nos.1 and 2 since 2017 and that the acquaintance was through PW-1. PW-6 deposed that he came to know through PW-1 that the accused No.1 provided government jobs on payment of certain money. The testimony of PW-6 reveals that while PW-1 paid
Rs.50,000/- to the accused Nos.1 and 2, PW-6 paid Rs.48,800/- in cash in the year 2017 for the post of an attendant. As per the examination-in-chief of PW-6, the accused Nos.1 and 2 handed over appointment letters to them which turned out to be fake after they approached the authorities. PW-6 deposed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 promised to return the money and that they failed to do so. Besides, according to PW-6, the accused Nos.1 and 2 threatened them that the accused No.1 would commit suicide by mentioning the names of the victims.
13.A juxtaposition of Ex.P1 with the examination-in-chief of PW- 6 goes to show that Ex.P1 does not specifically state anywhere that PW-6 paid the sum of Rs.48,800/- in the year 2017 and in cash. Further, the examination-in-chief of PW-6 does not specifically state that when the
C.C. No.397 of 2019 9 17-04-2025
accused threatened them. In addition, the examination-in-chief of PW-6 does not mention the quantum of money stated to have been given by the other victims except PW-1. Moreover, the examination-in-chief of PW-1 does not mention anywhere that they approached the police on the advice of their acquaintance. In his cross-examination, PW-6 categorically admitted that he had no knowledge about the family and financial matters of the accused. He further admitted that he came to know that the accused
Nos.1 and 2 through some unknown persons. However, as per the examination-in-chief of PW-6, he deposed that he came to know the accused Nos.1 and 2 through PW-1.
14.As per the cross-examination of PW-6 and as per Ex.P1, it is contended that PW-6 completed Bachelor of Sciences. PW-6 admitted that to become a medical practitioner, one has to pursue Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) or Nursing in Bachelor of Sciences or the required medical qualification. Strangely, PW-6 admitted that he did not have any qualification to be appointed in the government hospital.
When such is the case, it becomes questionable as to how PW-6 was under
C.C. No.397 of 2019 10 17-04-2025
the impression that he would be provided with a job for which, he admittedly did not have the necessary required qualification, even on the premise that he was ready to pay or that he paid a certain sum of money.
PW-6 further admitted that a notification would be issued for any government job and that no notification was shown by the accused.
15.In furtherance of this aspect, PW-6 deposed that he handed over the appointment order to the police. However, a perusal of the record categorically reveals that no such order or appointment letter has been adduced as evidence on behalf of the prosecution. In this regard, the cross- examination of the investigating officer/PW-10 reveals that he deposed that no original appointment letter or appointment order was secured by him from any of the victims. PW-10 volunteered that a photocopy of the appointment letter was given to him. However, the record reveals that even such a photocopy, irrespective of its admissibility, has not been adduced or attempted to be adduced as evidence on behalf of the prosecution. When such is the case, the same would undoubtedly go against the case of the prosecution.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 11 17-04-2025
16.One other aspect worth considering is that there are no specifics regarding the sum of Rs.48,800/- stated to have been paid by PW- 6 to the accused Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P1 does not throw any light upon this aspect. Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW-6 do not mention anywhere that if the sum of Rs.48,800/- was given at a time or if it was paid in installments.
In addition, though the evidence of PW-6 narrates that he gave the sum of
Rs.48,800/- in the year 2017, the same does not specifically find place in
Ex.P1. As a matter of fact, even the evidence of PW-6 does not mention the date or month in 2017 when the money was given. In addition, the place at which the sum was given and in whose presence it was given are also absent in the evidence of PW-6. More importantly, the fact that PW-6 being a graduate and being fully aware of the fact that he did not possess the required qualification for the particular job, having stated to have lent money for such a job does not appear believable. When these aspects are considered, it cannot be said that the evidence of PW-6 has remained credible and reliable. That being the scenario, it only stands that the evidence of PW-6 has been impeached.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 12 17-04-2025
17.The examination-in-chief of PW-1 goes to show that the accused No.1 took Rs.50,000/- from him on installments by way of cash in 2017 for the government job. PW-1 stated that the accused No.1 took
Rs.48,800/- from PW-6 as well. According to PW-1, when he along with the other victims questioned the accused No.1, the accused No.1 postponed the matter for some time and thereafter, provided appointment orders to them. As per the evidence of PW-1, when he along with PW-6 approached the government hospital, Challapalli, he came to know the appointment orders were created. Thereafter, when they went to the house of the accused, the accused No.2 threatened that the accused No.1 would commit suicide by mentioning their names. Thereafter, they approached the police.
In this connection, it must be noted that the examination-in-chief of PW-1 only states that he along with PW-6 paid money to the accused. It does not specifically state anywhere that any of the other victims paid any money to the accused.
18.In his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the accused
Nos.1 and 2 were neither his friends nor his relatives. He admitted that he
C.C. No.397 of 2019 13 17-04-2025
came to know that the accused Nos.1 and 2 through some unknown persons and that he had no idea what the accused Nos.1 and 2 talked with
PW-6. PW-1 admitted that he did not personally discuss anything with the accused Nos.1 and 2. This admission of PW-1 that he did not discuss anything personally with the accused Nos.1 and 2 would only go to imply that there was no direct communication or contact between the accused
Nos.1, 2, and PW-1. If such a scenario were to be considered, a more than reasonable question arises as to how PW-1 could have paid the sum of
Rs.50,000/- for a job without personally discussing anything with the persons who purportedly promised the job. As per the cross-examination of
PW-1, he paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.1 in Machilipatnam.
However, Ex.P1 as well as the examination-in-chief of PW-1 goes to show that the sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid on certain occasions but not altogether. When such is the case, this statement of PW-1 would only go against Ex.P1 and his examination-in-chief. Delving a little deeper into this aspect, nowhere has it been mentioned in Ex.P1 or the evidence of PW-1
C.C. No.397 of 2019 14 17-04-2025
that the money was given to the accused No.1 in particular and that too in
Machilipatnam.
19.To further complicate things, PW-1 admitted that one has to possess the required medical qualification to be appointed in the government hospital and that he did not have any such required medical qualification. Even according to the prosecution, PW-1 was promised a job in the government hospital. However, the cross-examination of PW-1 goes to show that he categorically admitted that he did not possess any qualification to be appointed in the government hospital. Admittedly, even
PW-1 completed graduation. That being the scenario, save for any compelling and exceptional reason, it would not be prudent or reasonable to assume that PW-1, a graduate, would have paid Rs.50,000/- to secure a job for which he admittedly did not have the required educational qualification. The prosecution has not put forth any compelling or exceptional circumstances which would explain this peculiar conduct of
PW-1. In the absence of any such explanation, the veracity of the evidence of PW-1 would be lost. PW-1 admitted that a notification would be issued
C.C. No.397 of 2019 15 17-04-2025
for a government job and that he was aware of the difference between an appointment letter and an appointment order. He deposed that he handed over the appointment order to the police. However, no such appointment order or letter has been adduced as evidence on behalf of the prosecution.
When such is the case, even the evidence of PW-1 does not appear reliable.
20.Coming to the evidence of PW-2, he deposed that he paid
Rs.65,000/- to the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the year 2017 on installment basis. PW-2 stated that the accused No.1 provided appointment orders to him and that when he and the others approached the government hospital,
Challapalli, they came to know that the orders were created. PW-2 deposed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 threatened them that the accused Nos.1 and 2 would commit suicide by mentioning the names of victims. As per the examination-in-chief of PW-2, he studied tenth standard. In his cross- examination, PW-2 admitted that he was not aware of the family and financial matters of the accused and that he came to know the accused through some unknown persons. Even PW-2 admitted that he did not personally discuss anything with the accused Nos.1 and 2. In this regard, it
C.C. No.397 of 2019 16 17-04-2025
must be noted that even according to the prosecution, PW-2 was promised a job by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and in pursuance of the same, PW-2 paid a sum of Rs.65,000/-. When the job was promised for PW-2, in the usual course of things, PW-2 would have had a personal discussion with the accused about the details of the job. Thus, when PW-2 stated that he did not discuss anything personally with the accused, it is incumbent upon the prosecution and more particularly, upon PW-2, to put forth the details of the person who discussed the details of the job with the accused. However, the record reveals that no such recital finds place in the evidence of PW-2.
21.Akin to the other witnesses, even PW-2 admitted that one has to possess medical qualification to be appointed in the government hospital and that he did not have any such qualification. Strangely and peculiarly,
PW-2 admitted that his educational qualification was seventh standard.
Thus, there is an apparent discrepancy regarding the educational qualification of PW-2. Further, PW-2 admitted that there was a difference between an appointment letter and an appointment order and that he allegedly paid money for the job of a compounder. Thus, when PW-2
C.C. No.397 of 2019 17 17-04-2025
himself states that he did not have the required qualification to become a compounder, the contention that he paid Rs.65,000/- for the job of a compounder, to which he admittedly is not qualified is improbable to believe. To further complicate things, PW-2 stated that he handed over the appointment orders to the police. However, as noticed earlier, no such order has been adduced as evidence by the prosecution. When such is the case, it only stands that even the evidence of PW-2 has been impeached by the learned counsel for the accused.
22.The examination-in-chief of Pws.3 to 5 reveals that they paid
Rs.40,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.55,000/- respectively on installment basis to the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the year 2017. Pws.3 to 5 further deposed that they were promised jobs at government hospital, Avanigadda, government hospital, Machilipatnam and government hospital, Avanigadda respectively. According to them, they approached the respective hospitals and came to know that the appointment orders given to them were fake.
They deposed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 threatened them when they demanded the money. While Pws.3 and 4 stated that they completed tenth
C.C. No.397 of 2019 18 17-04-2025
standard, PW-5 deposed that he completed diploma in Industrial Training
Institute. In their cross-examination, Pws.3 and 4 admitted that one has to possess medical qualification to be appointed in a government hospital and that they did not have any such medical qualification. Thus, even according to Pws.3 and 4, they did not have the required medical qualification to be appointed in the jobs for which they purportedly paid the money.
23.Pws.3 and 4 deposed that they were aware of the difference between an appointment letter and an appointment order. They further admitted that the appointment orders would be issued by the authorities concerned through registered post. In this connection, according to Pws.3 and 4, the appointment orders were provided to them by the accused No.1 but not through registered post. When such is the case, this conduct of
Pws.3 and 4 in believing the appointment orders stated to have been provided by the accused Nos.1 and 2, when they were well aware of the fact that such orders would only sent through registered post does not appear tenable.The cross-examination of PW-5 goes to show that he was aware of the difference between an appointment letter and an appointment
C.C. No.397 of 2019 19 17-04-2025
order. He further admitted that the appointment order would be sent by the
District Medical and Health Office, Machilipatnam. However, it is not the specific case of the prosecution or that of PW-5 that he received any appointment order from the aforesaid office. When such is the case, this conduct of PW-5 does not aid the case of the prosecution.
24.The examination-in-chief of PW-7 also goes to show that he paid Rs.30,000/- to the accused No.1 in cash in the year 2017 for the post of the personal secretary to the District Medical and Health Officer. He further deposed that the accused handed over appointment letters to them which turned out to be fake. PW-7 testified that Pws.1 and 2 threatened them that the accused No.1 would commit suicide by mentioning their names. In his cross-examination, PW-7 admitted that he was working in a government undertaking when the present case was lodged. He admitted that he came to know the accused Nos.1 and 2 through some unknown persons. PW-7 deposed that the appointment letter contained the seal of the government and that he handed over to the same to the police. The record reveals that the same has not been filed before this Court. In addition, PW-
C.C. No.397 of 2019 20 17-04-2025
7 admitted that an appointment order would be sent through registered post which, admittedly, did not take place in the present case. To add to his misery, PW-7 admitted that even the post for which he paid the money required a medical degree and that he did not possess any such degree.
When such is the scenario, it becomes difficult to believe and comprehend that PW-7, despite being engaged in a government undertaking, paid a certain sum of money for a job to which he admittedly was not entitled to.
Thus, even the evidence of PW-7 in this regard goes against the ordinary course of things.
25.One other aspect worth considering in the evidence of all the victims i.e., Pws.1 to 7 is that there seems to be no certainty as to how they become acquainted with the accused Nos.1 and 2. As per Ex.P1, it is stated that PW-6 became acquainted with the accused Nos.1 and 2 through some unknown persons. However, the examination-in-chief of PW-6 goes to show that he became acquainted with the accused Nos.1 and 2 through
PW-1. Strangely, in his cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that he became acquainted with the accused Nos.1 and 2 through some unknown persons.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 21 17-04-2025
The cross-examination of Pws.1 and 2 goes to show that they admitted that they became acquainted with the accused Nos.1 and 2 through some unknown persons. While the evidence of Pws.3 and 4 mentions that they became acquainted with the accused Nos.1 and 2 through Pws.1 and 5 respectively, even the same categorically states that Pws.1 and 5, in turn, were acquainted with the accused Nos.1 and 2 through some unknown persons. The evidence of PW-5 depicts that he became acquainted with the accused No.1 through the brother of the accused No.1. Even the evidence of PW-7 categorically goes to show that he became acquainted with the accused Nos.1 and 2 through some unknown persons. When such is the case, it is more than evident that the case of the prosecution does not specifically mention the manner in which the victims became acquainted with the accused.
26.Besides, it must be noted that the evidence of Pws.1 to 7 does not specifically put forth even one particular date or month in which any of them handed over any quantum of money to the accused. When there are as many as seven witnesses who claim that each of them gave a certain
C.C. No.397 of 2019 22 17-04-2025
sum of money to the accused Nos.1 and 2 for securing one employment or the other, one among such victims, at the very least, ought to have put forth the specific date or month in which he handed over any sum of money to the accused Nos.1 and 2. However, the record reveals that no such specific recital finds place in the evidence of any of the victims. Further, admittedly, Pws.1 and 6 were graduates by the time they purportedly paid the money and PW-7 was already engaged in a government undertaking when he supposedly paid the money. When such is the case, one among them, at the very least, could have put forth any specific date or month on which the payments were made. No reason has been put forth by the prosecution for this omission in the evidence of Pws.1 to 7.
27.At this juncture, one argument of the learned counsel for the accused has to be looked into. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the case was foisted at the instance of one Ande Jagadeesh due to political disputes. In this connection, while Ex.P1 categorically states that PW-6 and the others approached the police as per the advise of one of their acquaintance, it must be noted that Ex.P1 does not specifically
C.C. No.397 of 2019 23 17-04-2025
state the name of such person who advised Pws.1 to 7. In this connection, the cross-examination of Pws.1 to 7 categorically reveals that they approached Ande Jagadeesh in connection with the present case. While some of the witnesses denied that they took the advise of Ande Jagadeesh, some other witnesses admitted that they took his advise. In any case, it is an admitted fact that Pws.1 to 7 approached Ande Jagadeesh for one remedy or the other in connection with the present case. That being the state of things, the same would only strengthen the argument of the learned counsel for the accused. However, based on this aspect alone, it cannot be said that the present case was registered at the instance of Ande Jagadeesh.
28.According to the prosecution, Pws.1 to 7 are stated to be the victims who gave the money to the accused and who were cheated by the accused Nos.1 and 2 on the pretext of providing government jobs. Thus,
Pws.1 to 7 happen to be the victims according to the prosecution. When such is the case, it makes no difference as who among them approaches the police. A perusal of Ex.P1 reveals that it was lodged by PW-6 and it contains the signature of PW-6 alone. It is not the case of the prosecution
C.C. No.397 of 2019 24 17-04-2025
that Pws.1 to 5 and PW-7 approached the police on any other occasion in connection with the present case or that any other case was registered based on the information given by Pws.1 to 5 and PW-7. In such a scenario, what precluded Pws.1 to 5 and PW-7 from approaching the police is something worth considering. Granted, it is not always necessary that a victim should approach the police for a case to be registered. However, when the victim is more than capable and competent to approach the police and notwithstanding the same, he fails to do so, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to explain as to why the victim did not approach the police.
29.For obvious reasons, Pws.1 to 5 and PW-7 happen to be the paramount witnesses to explain what happened to each of them respectively. However, the record reveals that it was PW-6 alone who approached the police to lodge Ex.P1.While the record reveals that Pws.6 and 1 approached the police together, it must be noted that Ex.P1 does not contain the signature of PW-1. Even according to the prosecution, PW-1 happens to be a victim and in all fairness, he paid a larger sum of money to the accused than PW-6, though the difference is minute. When such is the
C.C. No.397 of 2019 25 17-04-2025
case, PW-1 being one of the victims ought to have signed in Ex.P1, more so, when he accompanied PW-6 to the police station, and when he was very much present in person when Ex.P1 was lodged. However, for reasons unknown or best known to PW-1, he did not choose to sign in Ex.P1.
30.Thus, when the evidence of Pws.1 to 7 is taken together, it is seen that there are no specific dates on which any of them purportedly gave the money to the accused, there is a categorical admission by a majority of them that they did not possess the required qualification for the jobs promised to them respectively, there is an ambiguity as to how they became acquainted with the accused Nos.1 and 2, there is an admission that all of them approached one Ande Jagadeesh in connection with the present case, and more importantly, though they stated that they handed over the appointment letter or appointment order to the police, the same has not been brought onto record. When all these factors are taken together, it only stands that the evidence of Pws.1 to 7 does not suffice to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 26 17-04-2025
31.Coming to the evidence of PW-8, it is seen that though PW-8 is stated to be one of the mediators in whose presence the accused No.1 confessed his guilt, PW-8 turned completely hostile to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the other mediator/PW-9 goes to show that according to him, on 03-07-2017 at about 21:00 hours, the police summoned him and PW-8, took them to the bus stand at Challapalli where the investigating officer/PW-10 arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2. PW-9 testified that the accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed in his presence that they collected money from five persons on the pretext of providing government jobs. The mediators’ report is marked as Ex.P3. PW-9 deposed that the accused No.1 confessed that the jobs would be provided through the brother of the accused No.1 namely Kiran and through one Krishnamurthy in the office of the collector. The accused No.1 is stated to have further confessed to having provided fake joining orders. According to PW-9, the accused No.2 also confessed to the same under the cover Ex.P3.
32.In his cross-examination, PW-9 deposed that PW-5 was his friend and that PW-4 was his neighbour. When confronted with Ex.P3,
C.C. No.397 of 2019 27 17-04-2025
PW-9 deposed that it contains his signature with the date beneath his signature. PW-9 deposed that the date beneath his signature is mentioned
as 04-07-2017 and that the same is true. According to PW-9, there are no
corrections or overwriting in Ex.P3 and no whitener was used over the contents of Ex.P3. However, when confronted with Ex.P3, he admitted that the date in Ex.P3 and the time of the day in Ex.P3 is corrected with a whitener. He admitted that the date after the correction is shown to be 03- 07-2017. In connection with this particular aspect, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that Ex.P3 is a false and fabricated document and that the investigating officer/PW-10 is liable for prosecution for having adduced a fabricated document. With regard to this aspect, as per the chargesheet, it is stated that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 03-07-2017 under the cover of Ex.P3 at about 22:00 hours. The case dairy dated 03-07-2017 also reveals that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 03-07-2017 under the cover of Ex.P3. Even the arrest cards of the accused mention the date of arrest as 03-07-2017 and the time as 22:00 hours.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 28 17-04-2025
33.A perusal of Ex.P3 reveals that as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused, a whitener was used in Ex.P3 and the modified date appears to be 03-07-2017. In addition, even the time of the day appears to be modified to night with a whitener. The examination-in-chief of the investigating officer/PW-10 also reveals that Ex.P3 was prepared on 03-07-2017. As a matter of fact, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were produced
before this Court on 04-07-2017 at about 17:15 hours and they were
remanded to judicial custody. However, the signature of PW-9 on Ex.P3 appears to have been made on 04-07-2017. When confronted with the same, PW-9 categorically admitted that the date as mentioned in Ex.P3 i.e., 04-07-2017 is correct. He further stated that it was he who wrote the date beneath his signature on Ex.P3 and that Ex.P3 reveals such date as 04-07- 2017. When such is the case, there is an apparent and glaring conflict between the record, the evidence of PW-10 on one hand and the evidence of PW-9, the date mentioned in Ex.P3 under the signature of PW-9 on the other hand. No explanation whatsoever has been adduced by the prosecution in connection with this aspect.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 29 17-04-2025
34.In addition, though PW-10 deposed that a whitener would be used to correct any errors, PW-10 did not adduce any explanation as to why the date under the signature of PW-9 is mentioned as 04-07-2017. A suggestion was put to PW-10 that Ex.P3 was prepared on 03-07-2017 and that the signatures of Pws.8 and 9 were obtained on 04-07-2017. The same was denied by PW-10. Regardless, when PW9 categorically admitted that the date 04-07-2017 as mentioned in Ex.P3 under his signature is true and correct, this denial by PW-10 would have no significance. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that Ex.P3 was prepared on 03-07-2017 and that the signatures of the mediators i.e., Pws.8 and 9 were obtained on 04-07-2017 does, hold water. Consequently, the same would only imply that Pws.8 and 9 were not even present when Ex.P3 was prepared and as such, the evidence of PW-9 with regard to Ex.P3 would have absolutely no significance whatsoever. This aspect coupled with the statement of PW-9 that PW-5 is his friend and that PW-4 is his neighbour would only go to establish that the testimony of PW-9 is liable to be discarded in its entirety.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 30 17-04-2025
35.Another significant argument advanced by the learned counsel
for the accused is that PW-10 had no jurisdiction to investigate the present
case. In this connection, a perusal of the record reveals that according to the prosecution, Pws.1 to 7 gave certain sums of money to the accused
Nos.1 and 2 for securing government jobs. Delving a little further, it must be noted that Ex.P1 does not specifically state anywhere that any of the victims gave the money to either the accused No.1 or the accused No.2 within the limits of the Challapalli police station. Ex.P1 only states that
PW-6 was promised a job in the government hospital, Challapalli. It does not state that any of the payments were made within the jurisdiction of the
Challapalli police station. As such, so far as the aspect of payment is concerned, for obvious reasons, the Challapalli police would have no jurisdiction. Even the mediators report/Ex.P3 does not specifically state anywhere that any of the payments were made within the limits of the
Challapalli police station.
36.As per the evidence of PW-1, he paid the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.1 in Machilipatnam. The evidence of the other witnesses is
C.C. No.397 of 2019 31 17-04-2025
silent about the place of payment. Thus, when there is nothing on record that would indicate that any of the payments were made within the limits of the Challapalli police station, it only stands that no offence took place within the limits of the Challapalli police station. With regard to the contention of the prosecution that the accused Nos.1 and 2 threatened the victims, as per Ex.P1, it is stated that on 20-06-2017 when Pws.1 to 7 went to the house of the accused Nos.1 and 2, the accused are stated to have threatened Pws.1 to 7. Admittedly, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are residents of
Ghantasala and within the limits of the Ghantasala police station. When such is the case, even this aspect does not confer any jurisdiction on the
Challapalli police. With regard to the aspect as to how Pws.1 to 7 came to know that they were cheated, as per the evidence of PW-1, it is stated that when he along with PW-6 approached the government hospital,
Challapalli, they came to know that the appointment orders were fake. The same recitals finds place in the evidence of PW-2. The evidence of the other witnesses does not specifically state that they approached the government hospital, Challapalli. While the testimonies of some of the
C.C. No.397 of 2019 32 17-04-2025
other witnesses is silent about whom they approached, the evidence of the other witnesses shows that they approached the government hospital,
Avanigadda and the government hospital, Machilipatnam. As such, an argument may be advanced that since PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 came to know that the appointment orders were fake when they approached the government hospital, Challapalli, the Challapalli police station would have jurisdiction.
37.Be that as it may, it must be noted that Ex.P1 does not specifically state anywhere that PW-1 or any of the other witnesses, for that matter, approached the government hospital, Challapalli in particular after which any of them came to know that the appointment orders were fake.
Though the statements of PW-1 and PW-6 recorded by the police show that they approached the government hospital and came to know that the appointment orders were fake, still, it must be noted that such statements do not specifically state that they went to the government hospital,
Challapalli. Thus, when Ex.P1 does not specifically state that any of the witnesses approached the government hospital, Challapalli after which they
C.C. No.397 of 2019 33 17-04-2025
came to know that they were cheated, no jurisdiction could have been vested on the Challapalli police station to investigate into the matter.
Though the chargesheet mentions that the scene of offence is situated at
Puritigadda village of Challapalli mandal, there is nothing on record which would indicate that the offence or any part of it took place at Puritigadda.
That being said, a reasonable question arises as to how the scene of offence is mentioned to be at Puritigadda.
38.When cross-examined on this aspect, PW-10 admitted that he did not obtain any specific orders to investigate beyond the limits of his police station. PW-10 deposed that the investigation was done by him since the victims belonged to Challapalli and due to the fact that the jobs were promised to be provided at the government hospital, Challapalli. Neither of these aspects, even if presumed to be true, would confer jurisdiction upon the Challapalli police. As stated supra, when Ex.P1 does not state that any of the victims approached the government hospital, Challapalli after which they came to know that the appointment orders were fake, there was no jurisdiction for PW-10 to register the First Information Report/Ex.P4. Even
C.C. No.397 of 2019 34 17-04-2025
if Ex.P4 had been registered, it should have been transferred to the police station concerned within the limits of which the offence took place. Thus, it only stands that this argument of the learned counsel is, in fact, true.
Accordingly, it can only be said that the Challapalli police had no jurisdiction to investigate the case.
39.Another aspect worth considering is that no evidence has been collected to show that the accused No.1 was engaged as an employee in the government hospital, Machilipatnam. When the very case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 cheated Pws.1 to 7 by promising to provide jobs at government hospitals owing to the acquaintance of the accused No.1 being engaged in the government hospital, Machilipatnam, the investigating agency ought to have collected some sort of evidence to show that the accused No.1 was, in fact, an employee in the government hospital, Machilipatnam. However, the record reveals that no such evidence was collected. In addition, though not argued by the learned counsel for the accused, this Court cannot ignore the fact that while the money is stated to have been collected in the year 2017, according to the
C.C. No.397 of 2019 35 17-04-2025
prosecution, Pws.1 to 7 went to the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 on 20- 06-2017 to demand for the return of their money. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are stated to have threatened Pws.1 to 7. Thereafter, PW-6 approached the police on 03-07-2017 and lodged Ex.P1. In this connection, it is evident that there is a delay of about thirteen days in approaching the police. No satisfactory reason has been adduced by the prosecution for this delay in lodging Ex.P1. Though Ex.P1 states that PW-6 approached the police as per the advise of their acquaintance, the First Information Report/Ex.P4 states that there is no delay in approaching the police. As a matter of fact, even Ex.P1 does not put forth the details of the persons who advised PW-6 to approach the police. In such a scenario, when there is no reason put forth for the delay of thirteen days, it can only be said that the delay is inordinate and thereby, fatal to the case of the prosecution.
40.Thus, keeping in view the fact that there is not even one specific date on which any of the witnesses gave money to the accused
Nos.1 and 2, the fact that the majority of the witnesses admitted that they did not have the required qualification to be appointed in the jobs promised
C.C. No.397 of 2019 36 17-04-2025
to them, the ambiguity as to how the victims became acquainted with the accused Nos.1 and 2, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the case was foisted at the instance of one Ande Jagadeesh which cannot be completely ruled out, the fact that Pws.1 to 5 and PW-7 despite being the victims and standing on a similar footing as that of PW-6 did not lodge any report with the police and that they did not even sign in Ex.P1, the glaring discrepancy regarding the date and time in Ex.P3 and the fact that the very genuineness of Ex.P3 is hit due to the evidence of PW-9, the testimony of PW-9 being unreliable due to the suspicion about his very role and presence as a mediator to Ex.P3, the fact that no appointment order or letter has been adduced as evidence on behalf of the prosecution despite the statements of the witnesses that they handed over the same to the police, the absence of any investigation to show that the accused No.1 was engaged in any capacity in the government hospital, Machilipatnam, the inordinate delay in lodging Ex.P1 and more importantly, the failure of the prosecution to establish that the Challapalli police had jurisdiction to investigate into the offence, this Court is inclined to hold that the
C.C. No.397 of 2019 37 17-04-2025
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused No.1.
41. Point No.3:
This Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code. This point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused No.1.
42.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused No.1, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Since no property is marked or seized, no property order is passed.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 38 17-04-2025
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected, and
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Movva.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENSE
PW-1 : Lacavattula Tirumala Naik. None.
PW-2 : Akkala Leela Babu.
PW-3 : Kanagala Srinivasa Rao.
PW-4 : Jonnakoti Suresh.
PW-5 : Naraharisetti Soma Sekhar.
PW-6 : Lacavattula Naga Malleswara Rao.
PW-7 : Songa Srinivasa Rao.
PW-8 : Parise Durga Rao.
PW-9 : Venigalla Naga Srinivasa Rao.
PW-10 : D. Chandra Sekhar.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 39 17-04-2025
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P1 : Written information given by PW-6.
Ex.P2 : Signature of PW-8 on the mediators’ report.
Ex.P3 : Mediators’ report.
Ex.P4 : First Information Report in crime No.135/2017.
FOR DEFENSE
Nil.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
Nil.
Sd/-Sri.P.Rajan Uday Prakash,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Movva.
C.C. No.397 of 2019 40 17-04-2025
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Movva.
Date of Report ofDate of Date of CommeClose ofSentenc Reasons for Offencecomplaintarrestrelease ncementTriale or delay on bailof trialOrder Remarks In the03-07-1704-07-28-07-18-10-03-04-17-04--- year1717232525 2017
Judgment in C.C.No.397/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Movva.
Complainant:State through the Sub Inspector,
Challapalli police station.
Accused:1. Garikapudi Prasanth Babu, s/o.Appa Rao, 24 years, Ghantasala village and mandal.
2. Gorikapudi Appa Rao, s/o.Prabhakara Rao, 50 years, Ghantasala village and mandal.
Offences:Punishable under sections 420, 506 of Indian
Penal Code .
C.C. No.397 of 2019 41 17-04-2025
Finding:The accused No.1 is found not guilty.
Sentence:In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused No.1, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Since no property is marked or seized, no property order is passed.
Sd/-Sri.P.Rajan Uday Prakash,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Movva.
Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Additional District Judge, Krishna.