1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:
PRODDATUR
Present:- Sri N. Vijaya Babu,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur
FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur
Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017
C.C.No.262 of 2012
State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Proddatur I town Police station ….Complainant
Vs.
1. Karanam Sreenivasa Rao, son of Karanam Malyadri, aged 24 years, Kamma by caste, private Employee, Resident of D.No.4-360, Sathyanarayana Puram, Dibbala road, Ongole City.
2. Maale Raju, son of M. Satyanarayana Setty, aged 22 years, Dealer, Vysya by caste, Resident of D.No.13/ 556, Santhapeta, Adhoni, Kurnool district. .…Accused
This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri B.
Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having heard and considered the material on record, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
This is a case of criminal breach of trust by clerk, cheating by personation, forgery for the purpose of cheating investigated by the Inspector of Police,
Proddatur I Town Police Station vide Cr.No.40/2010 and laid charge sheet for the offence U/sec.408, 417, 468, 420 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 and 2.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.3.2010, at or about 8.00
PM, the complainant namely Y. Chenna Krishna Reddy, Senior Relationship
Manager, Net Worth Stock Broking Company, Proddatur came to the police station and filed written complaint stating that accused No.1 who was an ex-employee of the branch in the above company with the help of some others cheated the company for a tune of Rs.11,00,000/- by selling shares and withdrawing the amount from the client K. Sivananda Reddy’s account by transferring the same into some other account which was opened by forgery and impersonation of the original client, that he has been working as a Senior Relationship Manager in the above company, in their company they will do business of purchasing and selling 2 of shares by the request of the clients. Kandula Sivananda Reddy is one of their clients, stocked some shares in the said account. On 20.11.2009, one person contacted through phone and pretended to be client Kandula Sivananda Reddy and requested to change his phone number, immediately his co-employee M. Raju incorporated the new number 9703465890 to the account of Kandula Sivananda
Reddy. Further, the above new person contacted by the above phone number and requested them to sell the Bank of Baroda and Sathyam shares which were stocked to the account of Kandula Sivananda Reddy. As per the said request, they did the same and informed the said person that the shares were sold for
Rs.11,28,648-38 paisa through the above phone number, immediately the said person requested that an account in Axis Bank, Vishakapatnam bearing
No.91000002864704 in the name of the said person and the amount shall be deposited to that account. As per the said request, they deposited an amount of
Rs.5,50,000/- on 15.2.2010 and an amount of Rs.5,55,000/- on 24.2.2010 in the above account. Later, one Maheswar Reddy informed him through phone that one person cheated them in the name of Kandula Sivananda Reddy. Then, he found that one person created some fake documents in the name of K. Sivananda Reddy and cheated their company for a tune of Rs.11,00,000/- and made a wrongful gain. The above new person cheated his company with the help of his company employee M. Raju, Ex. Employee K. Sreenivasa Rao and Maheswar Reddy, he requested to take action against those persons who cheated the company in the name of their clients.
Basing on the above complaint, LW.12 (N. Ravi Kumar) the then deceased
C.I. of I town P.S. Proddatur registered a case in Cr.No.40/2010 for the offence u/Sec.408, 417, 468, 420 r/w.34 of IPC and submitted F.I.Rs. to the concerned officers and took up investigation, examined and recorded the statement of LW.1 (Y. Chenna Krishna Reddy). On the next day, the deceased C.I. examined and recorded the statements of LW.2 P. Suresh Kumar, LW.3 M. Hari Prasad, LW.4 P.
Sankar Reddy, LW.5 S. Hari Babu, LW.6 Kothapalli Sunil and LW.7 Kandula
Sivananda Redy. On 20.3.2010, at or about 8.00 AM, Accused No.1 approached 3
LW.8 (K. Bhaskar Reddy) and confessed to have committed the offence who recorded the same and produced the accused No.1 before the deceased C.I. who arrested the accused No.1 and seized Rs.70,000/- from the possession of the accused No.1 in the presence of LW.8 (K. Bhaskar Reddy) and LW.9 (C.
Kuthubuddine). On 28.3.2010 at or about 4.00 PM, Accused No.2 was arrested by the deceased C.I. and Accused No.2 on enquiry confessed to have committed this offence in the presence of LWs.10 and 11 (Shaik Hidayath Hussain and T. Shakir
Hussain). After compliance of due procedure, Accused No.2 was produced before this Court for judicial custody. Accused No.3 was still absconding, as such the charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 only. During the course of investigation, the then C.I. Ravi Kumar died and further investigation was conducted by LW.12 (M. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy) who verified the same and filed charge sheet in the above crime.
3. This Court taken cognizance for the offences U/sec.408, 417, 468, 420 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 and 2.
4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required
U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to them.
5. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. A charge u/Secs.417, 468, 420 of IPC against accused No.1 and Sec.408, 417 and 420 of
IPC against Accused No.2 is framed, read over and explained to the accused in
Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, the charge U/s.417 of IPC is altered to S.419 of IPC against A.1 & A.2.
6. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution in all examined
PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material found against them in the prosecution evidence for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. After altering the charge from
S.417 to 419 of IPC the learned A.P.P filed memo no further evidence and counsel 4
for accused also reported no further cross examination.
7. P.W.1/ Y. Chenna Krishna Reddy – defacto complainant, PW.2 / P. Suresh
Kumar – witness, PW.3 / P. Sankar Reddy – witness, PW.4/K. Sivananda Reddy – victim / witness, PW.5 / K. Bhaskar Reddy – VRO, PW.6 / Shaik Hidayath Hussain –
Panchayatdar, PW.7 / T. Shakir Hussain – Panchayatdar and PW.8 / M. Vijaya
Bhaskar Reddy – Investigating officer. Ex.P.1 is the Report, Ex.P.2 is the
Panchanama dt.20.3.2010 at 8.10 AM, Ex.P.3 is the Panchanama dt.20.3.2010 at 10.05 AM, PW.4 is the Signature of PW.6 in panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the Signature of
PW.7 in panchanama, Ex.P.6 is the F.I.R. in Cr.No.40/2010 and Ex.P.7 is the
Panchanama dt.28.3.2010 at 4.00 PM.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
9.Now the points for determination are:-
1.Whether the prosecution could prove that in the year, 2009 the
Accused No.2 being the employee of Net Worth Stock Broking Company
Limited, Proddatur who was entrusted with certain property helped in committing fraud by accused No.1 and caused loss to an amount of
Rs.11,28,648/-?
2. Whether the prosecution could prove that in the year 2009, Accused
No.1 forged the documents and created fake bank accounts in the name of PW.4 without knowledge of PW.4?
3. Whether the prosecution could prove that in the year, 2009 A.1 & A.2 by impersonation as P.W.4 got created fake documents and bank account in the name of P.W.4 on a fake I.D by using one Raju Bayya for said purpose?
4. Whether the prosecution could prove that in the year, 2009 accused
Nos.1 and 2 by forging the documents in the name of PW.4 without knowledge of P.W.4 by creating forged documents got sold away the shares of PW.4 without knowledge of PW.4 and thereby, committed cheating resulting loss of Rs.11,28,648/- to the Net Worth Stock Broking
Company Limited?
5
5. To what Result?
10.PW.1 in his evidence stated that he previously worked as relationship manager, Net Worth Stock Broking Company at Proddatur. He know P.Ws.2 to 4,
LW.3 Hari Siva Prasad Reddy, LW.5 S. Hari Babu, LW.6 K. Sunil, and he also know accused Nos.1 and 2. PW.4 is their client and accused Nos.1 and 2 are the employees of their company. They usually do trading of shares of customers by phone and in the same manner they also used to do the trading of shares of PW.4 by phone. Previously accused No.1 misappropriated amount of client from his account without the knowledge of the clients. On knowing the said misappropriation of the amount, the company removed accused No.1 from service. Later, accused No.1 contacted accused No.2 who is working in the company and asked accused No.2 to update the mobile number of PW.4 along with a form with forged signature of PW.4. On receiving the same, accused No.2 updated the mobile number of PW.4. After two months, accused No.1 made a phone call to accused No.2 to sell the shares of PW.4 of Bank of Baroda and
Sathyam Shares. On the instructions of accused No.1, accused No.2 sold the shares of PW.4 and after 10 days, accused No.2 received phone call i.e., from accused No.1 to make pay out. Payout means giving the amount which was received by the company on selling the shares of the clients in the form of cheque. After issuing cheque by the company, Accused No.2 made a phone call to accused No.1 i.e., to the updated mobile number, for which accused No.1 informed to accused No.2 to send the cheue to the Axis Bank. Prior to this accused No.1 hatched plan to misappropriate the amount of PW.4, for which accused No.2 also opened an account in the name of PW.4 with forged signatures at Vizag. Then, the company send two cheques to Axis Bank, Proddatur for online payment to the account of PW.4 which was created by accused No.1 by using forged signatures of PW.4 twice i.e., on 15.2.2010 and 22.2.2010 for an amount of
Rs.5,50,000/- each. Accused No.1 withdrew an amount of Rs.11,28,648-38 Paise.
6
After 10 days, Maheswar Reddy previous employee made phone call to the office and made enquiry regarding to the shares of PW.4, for which they informed that they sold the shares of PW.4 and made payout to PW.4. Maheswar Reddy informed that PW.4 is in abroad and hence, asked them to give details how the company sold the shares of PW.4, they told to Maheswar Reddy that they will inform after making enquiry, then they checked in the computer to know the phone numbers from which they received phone call operating the account of
PW.4 and when questioned accused No.2 when the phone number was changed in the system, for which accused No.2 informed them, accused No.2 only updated the mobile number of PW.4. Then, he informed to the company officials, then company officials came to the company and enquired into the matter and questioned accused No.2 and accused No.2 narrated the entire facts how the shares of PW.4 was sold and the amount misappropriated. After 3 days, they went to Kadapa to meet P.W.4 who returned from abroad. They returned the amount of the company to PW.4 to compensate him for goodwill of the company. Then he went to police station and filed complaint.
b) PW.2 in his evidence stated that he is working as care taker at R & B guest house, Proddatur. He know the witnesses and accused. In the month of
October, 2009, he joined as a Association Relationship Manager, in Net Worth
Stock Broking Company, Proddatur which is used to buy and sell of customers shares online. In the month of November, 2009, accused No.2 one of the dealer of the said company approached him and presented one application in the name of PW.4 for PAN card. On verifying the application, he rejected the said application as the application was not presented along with some documents. After 2 or 3 days, accused No.1 approached him and presented an application requesting to apply duplicate PAN card in the name of PW.4 and on verification as it was not properly presented along with some documents. He came to know after few days from the company that accused Nos.1 and 2 sold the shares of PW.4 without consent of P.W.4. He came to know that the company paid Rs.11 lakhs to PW.4 7 due to the acts of the accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 misappropriated the shares of the PW.4 and sold the said shares.
c) PW.3 in his evidence deposed that he worked as relationship manager at
Net Worth Stock Broking Company, Proddatur from June, 2009 to December, 2012.
He know the witnesses and accused Nos.1 and 2. On 20.11.2010, he came to know in a meeting that a person made phone call to the company which was received by accused Nos.1 and 2 and enquired about the shares which were in the name of PW.4. On the enquiry, accused No.1 and 2 informed to the said person about the shares of PW.4. He came to know in the meeting that accused Nos.1 and 2 changed the phone number of PW.4 through which transactions will be held by the company with PW.4 and in the place of said phone number, accused Nos.1 and 2 kept another phone number i.e., 9703466890. One person made a phone call from the phone number 9703466890 and informed to the company to be speaking on behalf of PW.4 and asked to sell the shares which stand in the name of PW.4 and also asked how much amount will receive on selling the shares, for which company informed that PW.4 will get Rs.11,28,648/- by selling the shares.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 by forging the signatures of PW.4, opened a new Bank account at Vishakapatnam and the account bearing No.91000002864704. On 15.2.2010 company received phone call from said phone call to deposit
Rs.5,50,000/- in the above account number and again on 24.2.2010 on the request made to the company from said phone number, the company again deposited remaining shares proceeds in the said account number. Basing on the complaint given by PW.4 about the selling of shares of PW.4 without consent of
PW.4 and on conducting enquiry by the company, PW.1 gave report. Due to the acts of the accused Nos.1 and 2 company losses its reputation and employees left the company.
d) PW.4 in his evidence stated that he purchased five thousand shares of
Bank of Baroda, 1500 United bevaries through Net Worth Stock Broking Company,
Proddatur and he gave his contact number of his cell phone 9849397811 to the 8 company. In the month of May, 2008, he took the statement account relating to his shares and during his verification, he came to know some of his shares were sold out without his knowledge. Then, he enquired about selling of his shares without his knowledge to the above company, he came to know from the company that PW.1 presented Ex.P.1. Shares worth of Rs.11 lakhs wee sold out.
Thereafter, company paid Rs.11,00,000/- amount to him after enquiry. He came to know from the company that two employees forged his signature and sold out his shares without his knowledge and consent. Police examined and recorded his statement.
e) PW.5 in his evidence stated that previously he worked as VRO of
Proddatur from 2008 to 2015. He know Accused No.1. On 20.3.2010, Accused
No.1 came to his house and requested him that accused No.1 was afraid of police as police filed case against accused No.1 and searching for accused No.1 and also further disclosed name and confessed that accused No.1 worked at Net Worth
Stock Broking Company, Proddatur and misappropriated an amount of Rs.33,000/- belonging to the company as the father of accused No.1 suddenly died due to ill- health and even after payment, the company removed the accused No.1.
Accused No.1 further confessed that in order to get money from the company, he made friendship with accused No.2 who was working in the company, by colluding with accused No.2 sold shares of PW.4 without knowledge and consent of PW.4 by forging signatures of PW.4 in order to get unlawful gain. Accused No.1 also further confessed to have changed the cell phone number of PW.4 without the knowledge of PW.4 to do transactions and also opened an account with the help of one Nuka
Raju at Vizag and Accused No.1 made an agreement with said Raju for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the transactions. Believing that PW.4 only requested the company to sell shares of PW.4, the company sold the shares of PW.4 twice and deposited Rs.5,50,000/- for one transaction and Rs.5,50,000/- for another transaction, in total Rs.11 lakhs and out of Rs.11,00,000/- Accused No.1 withdrawn Rs.7 lakhs. Out of Rs.7 lakhs, accused No.1 gave Rs.1 lakh to Raju who 9 was working in the company at the time of fraudulent transactions and Rs.1 lakh to one Nuka Raju and Rs.3,00,000/- to creditors of accused No.1 and spent
Rs.1,30,000/- for own expenses within remaining of Rs.2 lakhs. He recorded the confessional statement of accused No.1 under the cover of panchanama dt.20.3.2010 i.e., Ex.P.2. He took the signature of accused No.1 in Ex.P.2. Then, he took accused No.1 to the police station and handed over accused No.1. In his presence C.I. enquired the accused No.1 and during enquiry, accused No.1 revealed identity particulars and confessed as confessed before him and the same was recorded by him under Ex.P.2. Thereafter, C.I. seized Rs.70,000/- from the possession of accused No.1 under the cover of panchanama dt.20.3.2010 at 10.05
AM i.e., Ex.P.3 which was scribed by constable on the dictation of PW.8.
f) PWs.6 and 7 did not support the case of the prosecution.
g) PW.8 who is the investigating officer who verified the investigation conducted by the deceased C.I. in his evidence deposed in similar lines to that of investigation.
h) The contention of the leaned A.P.P. is that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and 8 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 proves that the accused in collusion with another person created documents and opened a account with impersonation, got sold shares in the name of PW.4 and cheated the company by taking the amount. As such the prosecution proved the offence u/Sec.408, 419, 468, 420 of IPC against the accused. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.
i) The contention of the accused is that there is nothing produced by the prosecution to prove that they are involved in this offence. Except the alleged oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5 no documents are produced to support the case of the prosecution involving them in this offence. There are severe contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5. PW.8 is only verified the investigation. As such the prosecution failed to prove the offence u/Sec.408, 419, 468, 420 of IPC. Hence, prayed to acquit them.
10
Point No.1:-
Except the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the alleged confessions of A.1 &
A.2, there is no documentary evidence putforth by the prosecution or complainant to show that accused No.2 changed the old mobile number of P.W.4 and replaced the same with another mobile number provided by A.1. In the cross examination of P.W.1, he stated that he has handed over the form through which A.2 updated the mobile number of P.W.4 as per the instructions of A.1. But, no such form was marked on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution except stating that A.2 changed the old mobile number of P.W.4 with new mobile number given by A.1, it is not stated where it was changed. If it is in the books kept by the complainant's company, no such book was placed before this Court, if it is in computer of the complainant's company, there must be record who changed the same, at what time and who has got access to the said computer at that time etc., but, no such record is placed before this Court.
ii)Except the alleged confessions of A.1 in the presence of P.W.5 and A.2 in the presence of P.Ws.6 & 7 there is no other material against A.2. P.Ws.6 & 7 didn't support the case of prosecution and further the confession of A.2 in the presence of police can't be considered in view of the bar U/s.25 of Indian Evidence
Act. With regard to confession of A.1 is concerned P.W.5 in his evidence supported the same. It is extra judicial confession. As per the cross examination of P.W.5 he only saw A.1 on 20-03-2015 only. It seems that instead of 2010 it is mistakenly typed as 2015. Which means P.W.5 has no acquaintance with A.1 prior to 20-03- 2010. As per the cross examination of PW.5, accused No.1 did not disclose before him about the possession of Rs.70,000/- with him at the time of record of statement under Ex.P.2. But, as per Ex.P.2 accused No.1 stated to PW.5 that he is having the said amount of Rs.70,000/-. PW.5 admittedly a VRO and given evidence in several cases on behalf of the investigating agency. That means he is having very much knowledge about the whole proceedings and also diligent person. But glaringly the material point about the possession of cash is not deposed by the P.W.2 eventhough, in Ex.P.2 which is recorded by him in his own 11 hand writing is otherwise. The above contradictions create a lot of doubt in the genuineness of Ex.P.2 confession.
iii)As per the evidence of P.W.1, A.1 made a phone call to A.2 to sell the shares and inturn A.2 sold the shares of P.W.4, that again after 10 days A.2 received a phone call from updated mobile number i.e., from A.1 to make pay out i.e., giving the amount which was received by company by selling the shares of the client in the form of cheque, that after issuing the cheque A.1 informed to A.2 to send the cheque to the Axis Bank. But, as per Ex.P.1 complaint and as per prosecution case, A.2 only updated the mobile number, but, no where they stated that it was A.2 who sold away the shares and issued cheque etc., P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that he presented the complaint before Police after completion of two months from the date of knowledge of misappropriation. No reason was putforth by P.W.1 as to the reason for delay. Further, P.W.1 in his complaint stated that at the behest of of a new person in collusion with A.1, A.2 and one Maheswar Reddy the new person cheated the company. The investigating agency didn't even choose to examine one Maheswar Reddy who is said to be one of culprits as per complaint and informant as per statement of
P.W.1 before police. There is no investigation by the investigating agency with regard to the two different versions of P.W.1 i.e., one in the complaint and another in his statement before Police. It is necessary to point out here that, as per the evidence of P.W.1 on the enquiry by him and his company officials A.2 narrated the entire facts how the shares of P.W.4 was sold and the amount misappropriated. After A.2 narrating all the story only P.W.1 lodged complaint.
But, the contents of Ex.P.1 complaint are quite contrary to the evidence of P.W.1.
As per P.W.3 evidence it was not A.2 who sold the shares and who sent the cheques, but, company. P.W.2 eventhough stated that A.2 approached him and presented one application in the of L.W.7 K. Sivananda Reddy for PAN Card, but, he rejected the same as the application was not presented along with some documents. No such application was produced by the prosecution. Further, on which date and why A.2 approached P.W.2 for PAN card on behalf of P.W.4 when 12 the company in which P.Ws.1 to 3 are working is only a Stock Broking Company.
P.W.2 further stated that police didn't examine him. P.W.3 is only a hearsay evidence as he categorically deposed that he came to know in a meeting about the facts. Further, as per P.W.3 A.1 & A.2 changed the number. But, as per P.W.1
A.1 was only a previous employee and infact A.1 was removed for misappropriation of amount. Neither P.W.2 or P.W.3 stated about the same in their evidence. P.W.4 is also only hearsay witness. Further, as per P.W.4 he came to know from the company the two employees forged his signature and sold out his shares without his consent.
iv)Neither the prosecution nor the complainant produced the documents containing the forgery signatures of P.W.4. As per the prosecution case the old number of P.W.4 9849397811 is updated with new number 9703465890. The investigating agency utterly failed to collect any material on whose name both the numbers were existing and whether A.1 or A.2 has anything to do with those mobile numbers. As such, there are severe contradictions in the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 5. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that in the year, 2009 the Accused No.2 being the employee of Net Worth Stock Broking Company Limited, Proddatur who was entrusted with certain property helped in committing fraud by accused No.1 and caused loss to an amount of Rs.11,28,648/-.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, this point is decided against the prosecution.
Point No.2:- Whether the prosecution could prove that in the year 2009,
Accused No.1 forged the documents and created fake bank accounts in the name of PW.4 without knowledge of PW.4?
Admittedly, the bank account or Pan card or any of the fake documents or bank account are not in the name of either A.1 or A.2. Eventhough, they are in the name of P.W.4, but, said to be created on the fake I.D of one Raju Bayya with the name of P.W.4 as per the prosecution case. Admittedly, the said Raju Bayya is not arrested and charge sheet is not filed against the said Raju Bhayya. There is 13 nothing brought on record by the prosecution except the alleged confessions of
A.1 & A.2 to prove that A.1 or A.2 are behind the creating of Fake IDs and bank account. As already discussed in point No.1 the said confessions and evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 5 is of no use in proving the prosecution case of forgery and creating fake documents without proving that A.1 created the same. The investigating agency utterly failed to collect any material to prove the involvement of A.1 in getting the fake Pan Card or opening Bank account in the name of P.W.4 on the fake ID of one Raju Bhayya, except vaguely relying on the confessions of A.1 &
A.2. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that in the year 2009, Accused No.1 forged the documents and created fake bank accounts in the name of PW.4 without knowledge of PW.4.
In view of the aforementioned discussion the point No.2 is decided against the prosecution.
Point No.3 & 4:-
As per the prosecution case and as per the confession recorded by PW.5, first the accused No.1 created the PAN card in the name of PW.4, thereafter with collusion of one Raju Bayya of Orissa opened the fake bank account of Axis
Branch by using the said PAN card to which account, the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- which is released after selling the shares was deposited. But for obtaining PAN card, photo and some other identity cards must be given. No material was collected by investigating officers to prove that A.1 is behind in creating any of these documents or opening Bank Account. Further, as per the prosecution case the cash of Rs.70,000/- was the remaining amount out of the Rs.7,00,000/- withdrawn by A.1. The investigating agency didn't make any efforts to verify with the Axis Bank, Dwaraka Nagar Branch, Visakhapatnam for numbers on the notes whether they are part of the said Rs.7,00,000/-. Further, A.1 is claiming the said amount and also filed counter in the Crl.M.P.NO.949 of 2010 filed by the complainant seeking for return of the said Rs.70,000/- and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 28-04-2010 stating that it was not the stage to decide the ownership of the said amount. There is nothing brought on 14 record by the prosecution to prove that the amount of Rs.70,000/- seized from A.1 is part of Rs.7,00,000/- with drawn from the Account bearing No.
910010002864704 of Axis Bank, Dwaraka Nagar Branch, Visakhapatnam.
With regard to the freezed amount of Rs.4,05,188/- the complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.2458 of 2010 requesting to direct the Branch Manager, Axis Bank,
Dwaraka Nagar Branch, Visakhapatnam to deposit the said amount into the Court and on such production to return the same and the same was dismissed by this
Court vide orders, dated 27-01-2011 on the ground that no notice was issued to
P.W.4 who is the victim. P.W.4 in his evidence stated that the company paid him
Rs.11,00,000/-. Therefore, now the victim is only Networth Stock Broking
Company Ltd., As per the statement of account filed by L.W.12 N. Ravi Kumar,
Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station along with requisition, dated 09-04-2010 the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- is deposited in the said account on 16-02-2010 vide 624220/CORP and another amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was deposited on 25-02-2010 vide 646701/CORP. As per the xerox bank challan receipts submitted by Networth
Stock Broking Ltd., to the Investigating officer the said amounts were deposited by them vide said cheques, dated 15-02-2010 and 24-02-2010. As per the statement of account there is an amount of Rs.4,05,188/- still lying in the said account. Eventhough, it is freezed since the year, 2010 none came except the
Networth Stock Broking Ltd., claiming the said amount. A perusal of the said statement of account shows that the same is in the name of P.W.4, but, P.W.4 is not claiming the same. As per the record as already discussed the same appears to be opened by using a fake ID on the name of P.W.4. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the said amount belongs to the Networth Stock Broking Ltd.,
As already discussed in point No.1 the P.W.1 is giving different versions at different times. P.Ws.2 to 4 are only hearsay witnesses. As already discussed in point No.2 once the prosecution failed to prove that the fake documents were created by A.1 consequently, there is no case for the prosecution to show that either A.1 or A.2 by impersonation i.e., by using one Raju Bayya created fake IDs and fake Bank account on the name of P.W.4 for cheating and thus cheated the 15
Net Worth Stock Broking Company to a tune of Rs.11,28,648/-. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that in the year, 2009 A.1 & A.2 by impersonation as P.W.4 got created fake documents and bank account in the name of P.W.4 on a fake I.D by using one Raju Bayya for said purpose & cheated the Net Worth Stock Broking Company Limited to a tune of Rs.11,28,648/-.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, the points No.3 & 4 are decided against the prosecution.
Point No.5:-
In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence u/Secs.419, 468, 420 of IPC and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.408, 419 and 420 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1)
Cr.P.C for the said offences respectively. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand discharged after completion of 6 months. The case property i.e., cash of Rs.70,000/- deposited vide CPR Item No.125/2012 shall be returned to accused No.1 on proper identification and receipt after appeal time. With regard to freezed amount of Rs.4,05,188/- in Account bearing No. 910010002864704 of
Axis Bank, Visakhapatnam the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Visakhapatnam
Branch is directed to deposit the said amount into this Court and on such deposit the same shall be returned to complainant's company i.e., Networth Stock Broking
Limited after appeal time on proper receipt and identification.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of April, 2017.
Sd/- N.Vijaya Babu,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur,
FAC I A.J.M.F.C., Pdtr.
16
MEMO OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for prosecution: for Defence:Nil
PW.1: Sri Y. Chenna Krishna Reddy – defacto complainant PW.2: Sri P. Suresh Kumar – witness PW.3: Sri P. Sankar Reddy – witness PW.4: Sri K. Sivananda Reddy – victim / witness PW.5: Sri K. Bhaskar Reddy – VRO PW.6: Sri Shaik Hidayath Hussain – Panchayatdar PW.7: Sri T. Shakir Hussain – Panchayatdar PW.8: Sri M. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy – Investigating officer
Exhibits marked for prosecution: for Defence:Nil
Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Panchanama dt.20.3.2010 at 8.10 AM Ex.P3: Panchanama dt.20.3.2010 at 10.05 AM Ex.P4: Signature of PW.6 in panchanama Ex.P5: Signature of PW.7 in panchanama Ex.P6: F.I.R. in Cr.No.40/2010 Ex.P7: Panchanama dt.28.3.2010 at 4.00 PM
Material Objects Marked: -NIL-
Id/- N.V.B., P.J.C.J. Proddatur.
17
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
Calendar of cases tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Proddatur
Date of __________________________________________________________________________________ Offence Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close Judgment Sion of on bail ment of of accused trial trial prior to 10-03-10 10-03-10 20-03-10 30-03-10 09-01-2014 24-04-17 27-4-2017
Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.262 / 2012 on the file of I Additional Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.
Name of the Complainant: The Inspector of Police, Proddatur I town Police Station in Cr.No.40/2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Proddatur I town Police station ….Complainant
Vs.
1. Karanam Sreenivasa Rao, son of Karanam Malyadri, aged 24 years, Kamma by caste, private Employee, Resident of D.No.4-360, Sathyanarayana Puram, Dibbala road, Ongole City.
2. Maale Raju, son of M. Satyanarayana Setty, aged 22 years, Dealer, Vysya by caste, Resident of D.No.13/ 556, Santhapeta, Adhoni, Kurnool district. .…Accused 556, Santhapeta, Adhoni, Kurnool district. .…Accused Offence: u/Sec. 419, 468, 420, 408 of IPC
Finding: The Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty.
Sentence: In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence u/Secs.419, 468, 420 of IPC and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.408, 419 and 420 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences respectively. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand discharged after completion of 6 months. The case property i.e., cash of Rs.70,000/- deposited vide CPR Item No.125/2012 shall be returned to accused No.1 on proper identification and receipt after appeal time. With regard to freezed amount of Rs.4,05,188/- in Account bearing No. 910010002864704 of Axis Bank, Visakhapatnam the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Visakhapatnam Branch is directed to deposit the said amount into this Court and on such deposit the same shall be returned to complainant's company i.e., Networth Stock Broking Limited after appeal time on proper receipt and identification.
Sd/- N.Vijaya Babu,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur,
FAC I A.J.M.F.C., Pdtr. To The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge. Kadapa.
Dis No.
Dated: