1
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, TIRUPATI
Present: Smt. P. Vijaya V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
Monday, the Eleventh (11th) day of December Two thousand and Seventeen.
C.C.No.31/2015
(Crime No.267 of 2013 of Tiruchanur Police Station)
Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the
SubInspector of Police, Tiruchanur Police Station... Complainant
And:
K. Nagarajamma, age 58 years, W/o K. Chenna Kesava, R/o Door No.2153/3, Vijaya Nagar, 2nd stage, RPC Layout, BMain, Bangalore40, Cate by
Padmasali. ...Accused
This case is coming on 06.12.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Smt M. Vani, Advocate for accused; and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The SubInspector of Police, Tiruchanur Police Station laid charge sheet against accused for offence punishable U/s.420 of Indian
Penal Code in Crime No.267 of 2013 of Tiruchanur Police Station .
2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are:
One Budda Krishnaiah and 7 of his family members are the owners of total and admisesuring Ac.2917 cents of land situated in Survey
No.314,316,317,318(2)(3) and 322 of Tiruchanur village accounts,
Tirupati Rural Mandal having purchased the same under registered documents at SubRegistrar, Tirupati jointly possession nd enjoyment of the said lands ever since there were purchased.
2
Further the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor conducted enquiries regarding the said land to an extent of 2817 cents under Inams Abolition
Act 1956 has issued Ryotwari Pattas in favour of them.
Further all the Pattadars have executed regisetred General Power of
Attorney in favour of Kothapalem Sathyanarayn, S/o Late K. Kondappa, for the purpose of executing sale deeds of all house plots of the layout of
Ac.2817 cents on their behalf.
Further, the G.P.A holders common layout has been prepared for the complete land of Ac.2817 cents and obtained tentative approval of Tirupati
Urban Development authorities, Tirupati in the letter Roc. L.P.No.17/GI/90
dated 15.06.1990. As per the specifications laid down by T.U.D.
Authorities, Tirupati development work has been carried out to the satisfaction of TUDA and accorded final approval in proceedings
D.Dis.No.L.P.No.17/GI/90, dt.02.12.1992.
Further the G.P.A holders sell a house plot No.193 situated in
S.No.316 after obtaining final approvals from TUDA, Tirupati under registered sale deed in favour of Veluru Rajagopal vide document
No.1258/97, dt.14.07.1997 at SubRegistrar Office, Renigunta by receiving valid consideration and delivered the possession of the same to vendee.
The above entire facts well known to the accused, but she intentionally suppressed the same with dishonest intention to get wrongful gain, approached the complainant by representing that the plot No.193 is free from all encumbrance and also made belief upon the complainant that the accused is alone is the legal hair and legal representative of deceased K.
Jayamma, the mother of accused K. N. Rajamma. Basing on the fraudulent representation of the accused, the complainant believed the same and purchased the said plot No.193 from the accused under registered sale deed vide document No.1865/2006, dt.24.04.2006 by paying valid sale consideration.
3
After purchasing the said plot No.193, the complainant sold the said plot to one K. Pushpalatha of Tirupati for valid consideration under registered sale deed vide document No.7396/2011 dated 05.12.2011.
Recently the said K. Pushpalatha approached the complainant made galata by stating that the complainant is not having any right over the said plot
No.193 since the vendor of the complainant i.e., the accused herein had no legal right or title to alienate the said property in view of early registered sale deed vide document No.1258/97, dt.14.07.1997 which was executed by K. Jayamma, mother of accused through her G.P.A holders to one V.
Rajagopal Naidu and then demanded the complainant to return the sale consideration. After perusing the earlier transactions, the complainant came to know about that he was cheated by the accused with her fraudulent acts.
Later, the complainant returns the sale consideration amount tot eh said
Pushpalatha.
In this connection the complainant T. Narayanswamy preferred a complaint before the Hon’ble Court of V Additional Judl. Magistrate of First
Class, Tirupati and on receipt of the same, a case in Cr.No.267/2013,
U/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code read with 156 (3) Cr.P.C was registered at
Tiruchanur Police Station on 02.12.2013 at 6.30 PM and took up investigation.
During the course of investigation , as many as 7 witnesses including the complainant has been examined, recorded their statements dated.03.12.2013, 23.01.2014 and 27.01.2014 respectively by L.W.8/M.
Jayaramaiah, SubInspector of Police, Tiruchanur Police Station.
During the course of investigation, the accused surrendered before the Hon’ble III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupato and vide
Crl.M.P.No.722 of 2014 dated 29.04.2014 where in the Hon’ble Court
instructed the accused to appear before the SubInspector of Police,
Tiruchanur along with two sureties together with their solvencies.
Accordingly, the accused appeared before L.W.9/J. Mallesh Yadav, Sub
Inspector of Police, Tiruchanur Police Station on 05.05.2014 along with 4 two sureties together with the solvencies. As such she was released on bail with sufficient sureties.
Thus, the accused is liable for punishment U/Sec.420 of Indian Penal
Code for her commission of offence.
3.This case was taken on cognizance, against the accused for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code the accused is in judicial custody.
4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents, on which, the prosecution intends to relied upon, she is furnished, in terms of
Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. The accused is examined under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code and that the accusations are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and she is denied and pleaded not guilty.
6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined Lws.1 to 9 as PWs 1 to 3,6,9,4,7 and 8 respectively and got exhibited Exs.P1 to Ex.P9 are marked.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined
U/s.313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form in Telugu, for which she is denied and reported that there are no defence evidence and no documents were marked on their behalf.
8. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.
9.Now the Points for determination are:
(i) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for offence punishable U/s.420 of Indian Penal Code beyond the reasonable doubt or not?
POINT: 5
10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that, the evidence of all witnesses evidence P.Ws.1,4,5 and the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P2 to P5 clinchingly establishes that accused cheated the
P.W.1 with fraudulent intention at the inspection of contract itself by showing that she bequeathed the property from her mother as a legal heir, even the same was sold away to one Rajagopal Naidu. Thus, she is liable for conviction for the offence under Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code.
11.On the other hand, this is the first contention of the learned counsel for the accused that P.W.8 is a investigating officer, not cited the
Rajagopal Naidu, in order to prove the allegation that mother of the accused sold away the property to him. When, Rajagopal Naidu is crucial witness in this case and he was not cited in this case is very much fatal to the case of the prosecution.
12.She further argued that, investigating officer did not seized
MOU and he do not know whether it is registered one or not, under that circumstances how can he connect the accused in this case.
13.She further argued that, Puspalatha is also a crucial witness in this case with regard to the transactions between P.W.1 and Pushpalatha, but she was not cited as a witness in this case by the prosecution this is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.
14.She further argued that, the recitals of the Ex.P5/ Cancellation of sale deed, not reveals any recitals for the reasons for cancellation of the sale deed. When, the said deed is silent with regard to the reasons for cancellation, and it is mentioned in the said deed that due to disputes with regard to the said land, the same was cancelled. When, P.W.1 himself admitted that possession and enjoyment of the said land is in their possession even till now, where is the question of cheating. Further, argued that, P.Ws.2,3 and 6 did not support the case of the prosecution and other witness including P.W.1 did not depose to the alleged incident and the said
Rajagopal Naidu is a factitious person. She further argued that, none of the witnesses did not depose about any incident. Thus, the benefit of doubt goes to in favour of the accused.
6
15.He also relied on the following decisions to strengthen her arguments.
She relied on Dr. Ramana Sreekanth Vs State of Telangana and another, reported in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 750. Wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that, for proving of cheating, deception is the live nerve of the offence of the cheating. The deception involves knowingly making a false representation and thereby fraudulent or dishonestly inducing a person to deliver the property or intentionally inducing to do or omit to do anything which he would not to do, but inducement to his disadvantage. So, this deceptive intention or guilty intention more precisely “mens rea”, should be present at the initial stage of the inducement to prove offence of cheating.
She also relied Dr. Edla Ramesh Naidu Vs SubRegistrar, Sabavaram,
Visakapatnam District and others, reported in 2009(1) ALD (337). Wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that, the validity otherwise of the transfers of immovable property, are subject to the provision of the transfers of the property act, 1882. Nemo dot quod non habit, is the salutary principal enunciated in the transfer of property Act, 1882, which means that no person pass or transfer a better title in a property than that he possesses therein. Registration by itself will not confer any title or right in the property so transfer on the transferring unless the transferrer is the rightful and lawful owner of the property.
She also relied on Majji Ramasathyam and Another Vs State of A.P., and others on 21.09.2017. Wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that, the ingredients of the above Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code clearly reveals that there should be dishonest intention. The dishonest intention should be from the very beginning, which is sine qua non to hold the accused guilty of commission of the said offence. The said proposition of law was laid down in Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs State of Gujarat and others.
15.Prior to appreciate the rival submissions on either side, it would be necessary to consider on the background of the factual position as to whether offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is made out. Section 420 deals with certain specified classes of cheating. It deals with the cases whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced to deliver any property 7 to any person or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Section 415 defines ‘Cheating’.
The said provision requires, (i) deception of any person, (ii) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or (iii) intentionally inducing that person 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. Deception of any person is common to the second and their requirements of the provision. The said requirements are alternative to each other and this is made significantly clear by use of disjunctive conjunction ‘or’. The definition of the offence of cheating embraces some cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and some in which no transfer occurs. Deception is the quintessence of the offence. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 are : (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security and the; (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under Section 420. (See Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai Vs State of Bombay:
1960 CrlLJ1383).
16.As per the above law, for the purpose of constituting of an offence for cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even, in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of culpable intention at the time of making of initial promise bing absent, no offence U/Sec.420 Indian Penal Code can be set to have been made out.
Sec.415 IPC defined the cheating and explain that existence of an intention of making initial promise or existence there of from the every beginning of the formation of the contract.
8
17.It is settled law, by the discussion with the above decisions, that for establishing the offence of the cheating that P.W.1 is required to show that accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation.
18.In order to prove the same, the prosecution relied on the testimony of the P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P.2 to P.5. Among them, P.W.1/ T.
Narayanaswamy, P.W.4/ T.N. Muralidhar, are father and son. P.W.6/ Hari
Babu is attester to the Ex.P3/ Sale deed. P.W.5/T. Muniramaiah and P.W.4/
T.N. Muralidhar are attesters to the Ex.P4/Sale deed. P.W.3/ G.
Krishnamurthy Naidu, who is alleged to be eye witness for the transaction under Ex.P2/Sale deed. P.W.2/ T. Narayanamurthy, who is a mediator for the transaction in between P.W.1 and one Pushpalatha. P.W.7/
Jayaramaiah and P.W.8/ Mallesh Yadav are the investigation officers.
19.It is the evidence of the P.W.1 goes to show that, in the year 2006, he purchased the plot No.193 situated in Sy.No.316 for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/ under a registered sale deed. For which, he exhibited the
Ex.P3. Ex.P3/Original Registered sale deed dated 24.04.2006 reveals the said fact. His evidence further shows that, in the year 2011, he sold away the said plot to one K. Pushpa under a registered sale deed. For which, he exhibited the Ex.P4. Ex.P4/Certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.12.2011 reveals the said fact. His evidence further shows that, later he came to know that in the year 1997, K. Jayammam, who is the mother of the accused sold away the said plot to one V. Rajagopal Naidu, under a registered sale deed. For which, he exhibited the Ex.P2. Ex.P2/Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 14.07.1997 reveals the said fact. His evidence further shows that in the year 2012, the said K. Pushpalatha, demanded him to return back the sale consideration since the said property was sold away by the mother of the accused and he do not have any legal rights over the said plot. For which, he return the said sale consideration to her and cancelled the sale deed in the year 2014. For which, he exhibited the Ex.P5. Ex.P5/Certified copy of the cancellation of sale deed dated 21.08.2014.
9
20.It is the evidence of P.W.4 goes to show that, about the purchasing of the property of his father (P.W.1) and sell the same to the
Pushpalatha under registered sale deed and demand of her for return back of sale consideration knowing the fact that the said land was already sold away the one Rajagopal Naidu and cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the Pushpalatha and return back the sale consideration to her.
21.It is the evidence of the P.W.5 goes to show that, about the purchasing of the property by Pushpalatha from P.W.1 and got electricity connection and erracted the borewell and in that time P.W.3 and other relatives came to the plot and question the title of the Pushpalatha, for which Pushpalatha demanded the P.W.1 for return of the amount and
P.W.1 executed another sale deed in favour of Pushpalatha with regard to other property and return back the amount.
22.It is the evidence of the P.W.6 goes to show that, in the year 2006 accused executed a registered sale deed in favour of P.W.1 in
Sy.No.316 of Tiruchanur village account for an amount of Rs.3,68,000/ for an extent of 70 ankanams. His evidence further shows that he, himself and husband of the accused by name Chenna Kesava attested on the said registered sale deed. For this extent, he supported the case of the prosecution and remaining part he did not support the case of the prosecution and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared him has a hostile and put the questions in form of cross examination, except marking of Ex.P8, nothing was elicited from him.
23.P.W.2. and P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared as a hostile and their statements were recorded as a
Ex.P6 and P7 by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor by put the questions in form of cross examination, except this nothing was elicited from them. Thus, their evidence is not at all helpful to the case of the prosecution for in any aspect.
24.As per the scrutiny of the ocular evidence of the P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 6 goes to show that accused sold way plot No.193, situated in 10
Sy.No.316 of Tiruchanur of Village accounts, for sale consideration of
Rs.3,58,000/ and executed a registered sale deed in favour of the P.W.1 on 24.04.2006. In order to prove the same the prosecution placed the
Ex.P3/ Original sale deed dated 24.04.2006. This is not disputed by the accused also. P.W.1’s evidence further shows that, the said property was sold away to the one Pushpalatha, under a registered sale deed on 05.12.2011 for sale consideration of Rs.6,57,000/. In order to prove the same, the prosecution placed the Ex.P4/ Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 05.12.2011. P.W.1’s evidence further shows that, subsequently he came to know that, mother of the accused sold away the said property to one V. Rajagopal Reddy, for sale consideration of
Rs.36,000/ on 14.07.1997. In order to prove the prosecution placed Ex.P2/
Certified copy of the Sale deed dated 14.07.1997. The said sale deed reveals that, one K. Kothapalem Sathyanarayana and Kothapalem
Krishnappa are as General Power of Attorney Agents of Bhudda Krishnaiah,
Smt K. Anasuyamma, K. Raghavamma, K.V. Venkatesh Kumar, K.
Alivelamma, K. Jayamma, K. Balamani and R. Veeramma, executed the said sale deed in favour V. Rajagopal Naidu on 14.07.1997. Further, P.W.1’s evidence shows that, due to demand of the Pushpalatha, P.W.1 cancelled the Ex.P4. In order to prove the same the prosecution relied on the
Ex.P5/Certified copy of the cancellation deed dated 21.08.2014.
25.As already discussed above what are the ingredients for the proving the offence U/Sec.420 Indian Penal Code. For attracting the offence of cheating this is the main ingredient i.e., deceptive/guilty intention or mens rea should be present at initial stage of inducement. As argued by the learned counsel for the accused that deception is live nerve of the offence of the cheating. As per the accused, she never cheated the
P.W.1 and he categorically admitted in his chief examination that prior to purchase of said plot be obtained the EC and relevant documents and there are no transactions and he verified the documents, so there is no attraction of offence of cheating and P.W.1 himself admitted that, he is possession and enjoyment of the said property and having title. Thus, there is no offence under Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code.
11
26.Though, the learned counsel for the accused argued at length as above, but admittedly, Ex.P2/ Certified copy of the sale deed, dated 14.07.1997 reveals that, as a General Power Attorney Agents the said K.
Sathyanarayana and Krishnappa executed a sale deed in favour the V.
Rajagopal Naidu by receiving sale consideration of Rs.36,000/ for the plot
No.193 in Sy.No.316 of Tiruchanur Village Accounts. It is a law that, once the document was registered, i.e., a public document till it was cancelled.
Though, the learned counsel for the accused argued that, MOU was not seized by the prosecution and the said Rajagopal Naidu, cited not a witness in this case and General Power of Attorney revoke after death of the
principals, but this is not a civil suit, it is only a criminal case, in this case,
the prosecution has to establish whether by the time of transaction, whether accused herein is valid title over the land situated in Sy.No.316 of
Tiruchanur village accounts and whether she is having legal rights to convey the property to others. Admittedly, as per the Ex.P2, accused herein is not having any title over the said property by the time of selling the property to the P.W.1 herein. When, she is not having any title and rights over the said property and the said Sathyanarayana and Kondappa sold away the said property to the V. Rajagopal Naidu under Ex.P2 as a General
Power of Attorney Agents, how can she sell the property to the P.W.1.
Admittedly, accused is not a illiterate and she is well educated. Under that circumstances, even though she is not having any title, she sold the property P.W.1 by receiving of sale consideration of Rs.3,58,000/. This, itself speaks that there is a malafide intention at the inception. There is dishonest intention from the beginning of the contract. Further, Ex.P2 reveals that the date of transaction is 14.07.1997. The transaction between
P.W.1 and accused is on 24.04.2006. Nearly, nine years back mother of the accused sold away the property to the V. Rajagopal Naidu. But suppress the said fact she sold away the same in the year 2006 to the P.W.1. Though,
P.W.1 admitted that he perused the all documents and obtained EC, but when documentary evidence is very much available on the record and the same itself speaks that at the inception of the contract itself there is a malafide intention to the accused and making false representation that she 12 is a real owner to the property and the same was mentioned in the Ex.P3/
Sale deed that, she got the said property from her mother as a legal heir.
This comes under perview of the dishonest intention of the accused in order to sell away the property already sold away the property, which is sign qua non to hold the accused guilty of commission of said offence.
Though, the learned counsel for the accused relied on the Majji
Ramasathyam and another Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others, but in the said preposition the date on the which the mortgage was created is not available to decide the dishonest intention of the parties in that case, but in the present case the dishonest intention accused at the inception clearly appears that, even he knows about the earlier sale transaction took place in between Rajagopal Naidu and mother of the accused, but sold the said plot to the P.W.1 herein again in order to cheat him.
26.Though, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the possession and title over the said property is in the name of P.W.1 and the same was admitted in his cross examination, but the same is not considerable point in the present case, because, even though the said sale deed i.e., Ex.P3 is in the name of him and possession of the said plot is in hands, but better title not convey to him because, there is no title to the accused to convey the better title to the P.W.1. If really, the property is not convyed to any body and Ex.P2 is forged one and said Rajagopal Naidu is a fictitious person , this is the burden of the accused to prove the same and she has to convey the title to the P.W.1. But, the same was not done by the accused even till now and not placed any record and not take any steps that, the said Ex.P2 is forged one and said Rajagopal Naidu is fictitious person. Admittedly, the prosecution did not cite the Rajagopal Naidu as a witness in this case, but it is not necessary and it is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution, because when documentary evidence is very much available in the record, the oral testimony of the witness not at all necessary and documentary evidence prevails over the oracular evidence under section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act. This is the best evidence rule for proving the contents of writing otherwise than writing itself. Thus, the 13 arguments of the accused counsel for not citing the Rajagopal as a witness in this case not at all considerable defence.
27.This is another contention for the learned counsel for the accused, Pushpalatha was a not cited as a witness, though she is a crucial.
The testimony of the P.W.1,4 and 6 and Ex.P4 and 5 clinchingly establishes that P.W.1 sold away the property to the Pushpalatha under Ex.P4 and after knowing the fact, the same was cancelled and amount was return back to the Pushpalatha under Ex.P5. When, Ex.P4 and P5 itself speaks about the said facts, where is the ncessity of the Pushpalatha to cite witness in this case. As already discussed about the section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Thus, the defence is not at all the supporting the defence of the accused.
28.This is another contention for the learned counsel for the accused that, registration by itself not conform any right or title in the property to transferred on the transferee unless the transferor rightful and lawful owner. In order to strengthen her arguments, she relied on 2009 (1)
ALD. 337, reported in Dr. Yadla Ramesh Naidu Vs. SubRegistrar,
Sabbavaram, Visakapatnam District and others. In the present case, the consideration of this court is whether accused sold away the property to the
P.W.1 which was already sold way by her mother to the V. Rajagopal Naidu or not and the same known to her or not. Accused did not deny about the selling of the property to the P.W.1 on 24.04.2006 and further she did not say she is not owner of the said property. But as per the Ex.P2, she is not having any title over the said property and the said Ex.P2 public document.
Though, registration not confer any title, but as per the accused her mother is owner of the said property and she and other persons gave a General
Power of Attorney Sathyanaraya and Kondappa, this is the burden of the accused to establish that the same was revoked, but the same was not placed anything. Under that circumstances, this court has to considered the
Ex.P2 as a valid document and it is inforce. But, though there is no title or right in the property so transfer to the P.W.1 even without any rightful and lawful ownership over the said property and even she is not competent to transfer the said property and put the transferee in possession of the 14 property. Thus, the legal possession relied by the learned counsel for the accused not at all supporting the version of the accused without proving that the said V. Rajagopal Naidu is fictitious person and Ex.P2 is valid document. The facts and circumstance, clearly establishesh that accused having knowledge about the execution of General Power of Attorney by her mother in favour Sathyanarayana and Kondappa to sell way plot No.193 to one V. Rajagopal Naidu, S/o Venkatrama Naidu of Nellatur village, she again sodl plot No.193 to the P.W.1/ T. Narayanaswamy. Accused sold plot
No.193 to the P.W.1 in the year 2006 and he sold away the same to the
Pushpalatha in the year 2011. And alleged General Power of Attorney came into existance between mother of the accused and seven others in the year 1993 and sale deed in favour of the Rajagopal Naidu was executed by the
General Power of Attorney holders of Jayamma is in the year 1997.Though,
P.W.1 admitted that he got encumbrance certificate and there are no transactions from 1993 to till his purchase to the said property, but the same was not placed by the accused herein, that tehre is no existance of
General Power of Attorney, and it was revoked in favour of them.
Admittedly, by the time of alleged transaction in between P.W.1 and accused the mother of the accused died and the same was mentioned in the
Ex.P3 that on 14.04.1998, mother of the accused died. But, not mention that the said General Power of Attorney was executed by the mother of the accused and seven others was revoked or not. When, the same was not placed, the presumption is the same in an existence. In view of the discussion in any angle, the defence of the accused not at all sustainable and trustworthy. On the other hand, in view of the discussion, the ocular and documentary evidence clinchingly establishes that accused herein with dishonest intention at the inception of contract itself, making a false representational that she is a absolute owner to the plot No.193, in
Sy.No.316 of Tiruchanur village accounts, even her mother sold away the said property in the year 1997 itself. Thus, the prosecution is able to establish the guilty of the accused for the offence under Sec.420 of Indian
Penal Code.
15 29 .In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, she is
Convicted U/s.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence.
Dictated to Additional Personal Assistant/ Typist, after transcribed by
her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of December, 2017. Sd/ P. Vijaya,
V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
30.When questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence, she submitted that she is aged person and suffering from illhealth problems and she has to look after the children and they pleaded mercy of the court. Having considered the plea of the accused, PO Act not applicable to the present case facts but this court inclined to take a lenient view against them.
31. The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sec.420 Indian penal Code. Therefore, she is convicted under Sec.248(2)
Cr.P.C. She is also sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for two years and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. In default for payment of fine amount, she sentenced to under go imprisonment for two months. No case property in this case.
The total fine amount of Rs.2,000/ (Rupees Two thousand only).
This is informed to the accused about the right to prefer appeal on the judgment. This is also, informed to the accused about the right of legal aid to engage the counsel for the appeal.
Typed to dictation by the Additional stone/typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of December, 2017 .
Sd/ P. Viajaya V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.
16
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses e xamined
For Prosecution: For Defence:
P.W.1T. Narayanaswamy None P.W.2K. Narayanamurthy P.W.3G. Krishnamurthy Naidu PW.4T.N. Muralidhar P.W.5T. Muniramaiah P.W.6K. Hari Babu P.W.7M. Jayaramaiah P.W.8J. Mallesh Yadav P.W.9K. Ramana Reddy
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For prosecution:
Sl.No.ExhibitDateDescription 1Ex.P119.11.2013Complaint U/s.156 (3) Cr.P.C. 2Ex.P214.07.1997Certified copy of Registered sale deed 3Ex.P324.04.2006Original Registered sale deed 4Ex.P405.12.2012Certified copy of Registered sale deed 5Ex.P521.08.2014Certified copy of cancellation sale deed 6Ex.P6–Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 7Ex.P7–Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 8Ex.P8–Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 For Defence: Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
For prosecutionFor defence NilNil Id/ P.V.J.
V AJCJ., TPT.
// True Copy//
V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Additional District Judge, Chittoor.
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
TIRUPATI.
Present: Smt. P. Vijaya V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
Monday, the Eleventh (11th) day of December, Two thousand and Seventeen. Calendar
C.C.No.31/2015
Date of offence : Prior to 02.12.2013 Date of report :02.12.2013 Date of taken on file :29.01.2015
Date of apprehension (appearance) :29.04.2014
Date of commencement of trial :14.09.2017 Date of close of trial :17.11.2017 Date of Judgment :11.12.2017 Complainant :The State, Represented by the SubInspector of Police, Tiruchanur Police Station, in Cr.No.267 OF 2013. Name of Father's name Age Calling Religion Residence accusedHusband’s name K. K. Chenna –House Hindu, D.No.2153/3, Vijaya Nagarajamma KesavawifeCaste by Nagar, 2nd stage, RPC PadmasaliLayout, BMain, Bangalore40
Nature of offenceU/s.420 of Indian Penal Code
FindingFound guilty
Sentence or order: The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sec.420 Indian penal Code. Therefore, she is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. She is also sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for two years and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. In default for payment of fine amount, she sentenced to under go imprisonment for two months. No case property in this case.
The total fine amount of Rs.2,000/ (Rupees Two thousand only).
This is informed to the accused about the right to prefer appeal on the judgment. This is also, informed to the accused about the right of legal aid to engage the counsel for the appeal. // True Copy// Sd/ P. Vijaya, V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Class, Tirupati. Tirupati.
Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Additional District Judge, Chittoor.