1 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR
PRESENT: SRI. Y. SATHYENDRA
III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH, 2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
IN
Crl. Appeal.No. 636 OF 2018 & 652 OF 2018
Crl. Appeal.No. 636 OF 2018
Between:
1). From which Court the :XI Metropolitan Magistrate, appeal is preferredCyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
2). Number of case of that:C.C. No. 269 of 2007 Court 3). Number of the Appeal:Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2018 4). i) Name of the AppellantA2 Kotha Pratap Reddy S/o. K. Buchi Reddy, Age: 58 yrs, Occ: SeniorBankManagerin TelanganaGrameenaBank, Hyderabad, R/o. H. No. 11-11-205, Telephone Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.
ii). Name of the respondents The State of Telangana, P.S. Chaitanyapuri. Rep., by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
5). The sentence and law The accused is found guilty of the under which it was passed offence under Section 420 of IPC 2 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
and he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant under Section 357(3)
Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
6). Whether confirmed, In the result, the appeal filed modified or reversed; and if by A2 in Crl. Appeal No. modified the modification. 636/2018 is dismissed with costs.
A2 is found guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC and the conviction against him imposed by learned trial Judge is hereby confirmed.
Learned trial Court Judge imposed punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of
Rs.10,000/- each and in default to pay fine amount they were sentencedtosimple imprisonment for one month.
3 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
This Court is considering the age of A2 and A3 as on today and reducing the sentence as SI for a period of TWO YEARS and fine of Rs.10,000/- (already paid)
before trial Court.
The remand period of A2 and A3 as noted is from 05-03- 2001 to 07-03-2001 (3) days for
A2 and 05-03-2001 to 12-03-2001 and 12-01-2015 to 15-03-2016 (435) days for A3 has to be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., this Court hereby informs A2 and
A3 about their right of revision.
This Court do not see any reasons to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
The bail bonds of accused and sureties shall be in force until expiry of time seeking revision.
A2 and A3 may get free legal aid if they intend to get.
Accused remained absent today though this court is giving 4 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
a chance for hearing on quantum of sentence. This appellate Court is not insisting for their presence under Section 387 proviso of
Cr.P.C.,
Office is directed to transmitthisrecordto concerned learned JFCM court at
LB Nagar, now dealing with erstwhileXIMetropolitan
Magistrate, at Cyberabad, R.R.
Districtdirectinglearned
Magistrate to issue conviction
warrant as per Judgment of this appellate court and see that it is executed. Learned advocate of
A2 may take copy of Judgment, it is made ready. The copy of
Judgment was given to A3 and he was sent to serve remaining period of conviction warrant.
7). Advocate for appellantSri. V. Surender Rao, Advocate for appellant 8). Advocate for respondentsAddl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent 5 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
This appeal coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. V. Surender Rao, Advocate for Appellant and learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent and after having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
Crl. Appeal.No. 652 OF 2018
Between:
1). From which Court the :XI Metropolitan Magistrate, appeal is preferredCyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
2). Number of case of that:C.C. No. 269 of 2007 Court 3). Number of the Appeal:Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 2018 4). i) Name of the AppellantA3 Sumoju Yogender S/o. Yella Chary, Age: 58 yrs, Occ: Nil, R/o. H. No. 16-2-770/1, Shankeshwar Bazar, Saidabad, Hyderabad, N/o. Gannellapallyvillage, Chandampet Mandal, Nalgonda District.
A4 Mukkarla Nagi Reddy S/o. Late Anji Reddy, Age: 59 yrs, Occ: Nil, R/o. 3-5-948/3/1, Gandhi Kuteer, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, N/o. Muttala village, Atmakur Mandal, Ananthapur District.
The appeal against A4 is abated as he died pending appeal.
6 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
ii). Name of the respondentsThe State of Telangana, P.S. Chaitanyapuri. Rep., by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
5). The sentence and law The accused are found guilty of under which it was passed the offence under Section 420 of
IPC and they are convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and shall pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of fine they shallundergosimple imprisonment for one month.
6). Whether confirmed, In the result, the appeal filed modified or reversed; and if by A3 in Crl. Appeal No. modified the modification. 652/2018 is dismissed with costs.
A3 is found guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC and the conviction against him imposed by learned trial Judge is hereby confirmed.
Learned trial Court Judge imposed punishment of simple 7 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of
Rs.10,000/- each and in default to pay fine amount they were sentencedtosimple imprisonment for one month.
This Court is considering the age of A2 and A3 as on today and reducing the sentence as SI for a period of TWO YEARS and fine of Rs.10,000/- (already paid)
before trial Court.
The remand period of A2 and A3 as noted is from 05-03- 2001 to 07-03-2001 (3) days for
A2 and 05-03-2001 to 12-03-2001 and 12-01-2015 to 15-03-2016 (435) days for A3 has to be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., this Court hereby informs A2 and
A3 about their right of revision.
This Court do not see any reasons to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
The bail bonds of accused and sureties shall be in force until 8 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
expiry of time seeking revision.
A2 and A3 may get free legal aid if they intend to get.
Accused remained absent today though this court is giving a chance for hearing on quantum of sentence. This appellate Court is not insisting for their presence under Section 387 proviso of
Cr.P.C.,
Office is directed to transmitthisrecordto concerned learned JFCM court at
LB Nagar, now dealing with erstwhileXIMetropolitan
Magistrate, at Cyberabad, R.R.
Districtdirectinglearned
Magistrate to issue conviction
warrant as per Judgment of this appellate court and see that it is executed. Learned advocate of
A2 may take copy of Judgment, it is made ready. The copy of
Judgment was given to A3 and he was sent to serve remaining 9 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
period of conviction warrant.
7). Advocate for appellantSri. K. Raghava Reddy, Advocate
for Appellant No.1
8). Advocate for respondentsAddl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent
This appeal coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. K. Raghava Reddy, Advocate for Appellant No.1 and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent and after having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
A2, A3 and A4 preferred this two appeals aggrieved by 1)
Judgment of conviction in C.C. No. 269/2007 passed by learned XI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Cyberabad at L.B.
Nagar dt. 28-06-2018 finding A2 to A4 guilty for the offence under
Section 420 IPC and acquitting them for the offences under
Section 506 IPC and Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 1932. A2 to A4 were sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to pay fine amount they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
10 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
Grounds of appeal submitted by A2 in Crl. Appeal No. 2) 636/2018.
Learned advocate of A2 narrated the case facts as per charge sheet in detail and elaborated the evidence adduced by prosecution. Thereafter learned advocate submitted that the defence documents produced are not appreciated on proper lines.
It is submitted that A2 with all probability could show his absence at Saroornagar, Hyderabad as deposed by several witnesses of prosecution. A2 side learned advocate made all efforts referring to each witness on the side of prosecution narrating the differences/ contradictions like argument. When this Court re-appreciates oral and documentary evidence on record, the Court will give grounds of appeal on evidence of each witness and answers the same. It is submitted that A2 proved the defence of alibi under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that presumption of innocence is in favour of A2 still before appellate court also.
3)Grounds of appeal submitted by A3 and A4 in Crl. Appeal
No.652/2018.
11 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
Learned advocate of A3 and A4 made all efforts referring evidence of each prosecution witness and pointed out certain differences like contradictions in the arguments. The grounds of appeal raised against each witness will be dealt with by this Court and the defence of A3 and A4 will be answered as per grounds of appeal agitating evidence of prosecution witnesses. When this
Court re-appreciates oral and documentary evidence of prosecution and defence, this Court will refer to grounds of appeal agitating against evidence of each prosecution witness and answers the same. The main defence of A3 and A4 is that no amounts were given to them, at any point of time.
4)Heard learned advocates of A2 and A3 in both appeals and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5)Now the points that arise for determination are:
1. Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A2 to A4 for the
offences under Sections 420, 506 and Section 7(1) of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act, 1932 beyond all reasonable doubt?
2. Whether Judgment passed by learned trial Court Judge suffers
from any infirmities or irregularities, if so whether it has to be set
aside?
12 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
Point Nos., 1 and 2: Before commencing the discussion, the Court is giving a catalogue of oral and documentary evidence giving gist of evidence, nature of witness and documents marked through him, if any.
PW1 P. Bal Reddy/ Defacto complainant
Description/He is one of the victims. He deposed about the gistcontents of complaint in Ex.P1. That on 06-12-1999 he paid Rs.40,000/- to A2 and he promised that he will provide job in City Civil Court, his father-in-law
A1 by name G. Krishna Reddy gave receipt as A2 is a
Government Employee. Thereafter accused persons postponed on some pretext. After several demands, they did not return the amounts also. In May, 2000, when he insisted A2 for return of amount, he arrested him. He also deposed about role of A3 and
A4 as Court employees introduced by A2 to him. This complainant deposed he along with several others paid amount to A2 for providing job. In the month of
February, 2000 he lodged report in Ex.P1. He was examined by police.
Document/Ex.P1 report given by him to police is marked. Ex.P6 materialis receipt in favour of PW1 issued by A1.
object 13 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
marked, if any
PW2 B. Jagath Reddy
Description/He is another victim deposed that he gave gistRs.40,000/- to A2 as he promised him that he will see that PW2 gets a job as Jr. Asst., at that time A1 was also present and he issued receipt for Rs.30,000/- because A2 is a public servant. Later PW2 came to know several others about (40) members gave money like him to accused persons to secure job. He referred A2 in specific. He deposed A2 introduced A3 and A4 working in City Civil Court as Attender and
Record Asst., respectively. That A2 to A4 all had shown photo copy of appointment letters purportedly issued by the City Civil Court. They approached accused several times, but they dragged matter about 1 ½ years. They did not provide any job and did not return the amount. They locked their houses and absconded. After the report given by
PW1, A2 executed document to (7) members to a tune of Rs.3,50,000/-. This witness gave evidence in
Family Court, Secunderabad also at the time of
Departmental Enquiry against A3 and A4, there he filedoriginal agreement dt. 15-04-2000 for
Rs.3,50,000/-. He produced paper clippings showing 14 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
the photos of accused and they are marked in Ex.P3 to P5. He produced receipt issued by A1 and that is marked as Ex.P2.
Document/Ex.P2 to P5 are marked through him. Ex.P2 is receipt materialdt. 27-06-1999 issued by A1. Ex.P3 to P5 are paper objectpublications about news of arrest of A1 to A4 with marked,their photographs.
if any
PW3 Challa Lal Reddy
Description/He is another victim. He deposed he gave Rs.45,000/- gistto A2 on 13-06-1999 and another amount of
Rs.5,000/- was given to A2 on 24-06-1999.
PW4 E. Swarnalatha
Description/She is another victim. She deposed that in the house gistof A2, when A1 was present she gave Rs.37,000/- and obtained receipt from A1. She deposed A1 and A2 claimed they knew A3 and A4 already working in
Courts and through them, they will provide jobs. She further deposed when she did not get employment
A1 and A2 stated that they were cheated by A3 and
A4 believing their words and they will repay the amount paid to her. She deposed original receipt for
Rs.37,000/- was presented by her before the enquiry 15 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
authority i.e., Family Court, Secunderbad. In the disciplinary enquiry against staff members.
PW5 Challa Rajitha
Description/She is another victim. She deposed that in July 1999 gisther husband paid Rs.40,000/- for which A1 gave receipt. She is relative of A1 and A2. That A2 informed her brother that he will provide the job in
City Civil Court. She handed over that receipt in the
Departmental Enquiry, when she was examined as a witness.
PW6 Sudini Susmitha
Description/She is another victim deposed that she is relative of gistA1 and A2 and they informed her they will provide her job in City Civil Court. In November, 1999 she paid Rs.50,000/- to A2 at his house. She deposed A1 and A3 were also present at that time. A1 issued receipts to her and other victims to a tune of Rs.3.5 lakhs. She gave receipt given in her favour at Family
Court, Hyderabad. She deposed accused cheated her saying that they provide job and return the amount.
PW7 Danda Srinivas Reddy
Description/ She is another victim deposed that in December, gist1999 he gave Rs.1,50,000/- to A2 giving assurance to 16 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
provide job in the Courts. A1 is father-in-law of A2,
A3 and A4 are Court employees. At that time he was working as bank employee at Adilabad. She deposed
A1 gave receipt on behalf of A2 as A1 is working as bank employee at that time. They did not provide job and they did not return the amount. She knows PW1 and other victims cited as witnesses. She knows about giving of report by PW1 to police. That he is examined by police.
PW8 G. Ravinder
Description/She is another victim deposed that A2 is his distant gistrelative, A1 is father-in-law of A2. He passed away in the year 2000 and he was told there are vacancies in the Court and A1 and A2 assured they will provide jobs by taking money. He gave Rs.50,000/- to A1 and
A2. When he asked for receipt, A1 had issued a cheque on behalf of A2 because A2 was Govt.
Employee. He deposed that transaction took place in the house of A2 at Telephone Colony. They did not provide job, they did not repay the money. A3 and A4 are Court employees. A2 told him that they will provide jobs with the help of A3 and A4.
Document/Ex.P7 is cheque issued by A1 for Rs.50,000/- material object 17 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
marked, if any
PW9 M. Srinivasulu
Description/ He is another victim deposed that he gave gistRs.50,000/- to A2 at his house at telephone colony,
R.K. Puram on 11-11-1999. A1 gave receipt as A1 is father-in-law of A2. He deposed A2 was also present when he gave money. They assured they will provide job with the help of A3 and A4. Said A3 and A4 were introduced by A1 and A2. Hence, he believed A1 and
A2. Again he gave Rs.20,000/- on 30-11-1999 to A2.
At that time, A2 was working in a bank at Nirmal. He used to come to Hyderabad during night time. PW9 used to meet A2 at his house during night. A3 and A4 also came to the house of A2. That accused absconded, when they failed to provide any job to this victim. Upon report given by PW1, he was examined by police. He gave two original receipts to
Judge, Family Court in the Departmental Enquiry.
PW10 B. Ravishekar Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that A1 is his senior gistpaternal uncle and A2 is son-in-law of A1. He met A3 and A4 in the house of A1 and they informed they are working in City Civil Court. In December, 1999, he 18 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
gave Rs.40,000/- to A2 in the presence of A1, A3 and
A4 on the assurance given by all of them that they will provide job for him as Junior Asst., in City Civil
Court, Hyderabad. For this A4 gave cheque for an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the name of father of
PW10. They waited for (14) months. He did not get job. He came to know along with him (70) persons gave amounts to accused for jobs. On 22-02-2001, they approached the Superintendent of Police and reported the matter and he had sent their report to
Saroornagar Police Station. PW1 gave report and case was registered. He was examined by police, he gave evidence before Enquiry Officer, Judge, Family
Court, Hyderabad and he presented the cheque as evidence in that Departmental Enquiry.
PW11 Chithamur Balraj
Description/ He is another victim deposed that in November, gist1999 he met A1 to A4 in the house of A2. All of them assured they will provide job to his wife. A3 and A4 brought list of vacancies in the Court and all accused shown the same. A1 gave receipt because A2 is a
Govt. Employee. He gave Rs.50,000/- and pursued the matter regularly. They did not provide him any job. They had absconded. He searched for them.
Along with him, about (50) persons paid the amounts 19 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
to accused for jobs. PW1 gave report to police on 20- 02-2001. He was examined by police.
Document/Ex.P8 receipt in favour of P. Vijay Kumar, the brother materialof this witness is marked through him.
object marked, if any
PW12 K. Venkateshwar Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that he is distant gistrelative of A1 and A2. They informed him about some vacancies in City Civil Court in November, 1999. They assured they will provide job through A3 and A4 who are employees in Court. In November, 1999 he gave
Rs.40,000/- to A2 in the house of A2 and at that time
A1, A3 and A4 were present. They failed to provide him any job. When he insisted for repayment, A1 paid only Rs.15,000/-. He came to know about (70) persons were cheated by accused. PW1 gave report on 22-02-2001 and he was examined by police.
PW13 Y. Swarnalatha
Description/She is another victim deposed that she is distant gistrelative of A1 and A2. She gave evidence in June, 2006 saying that about six years back she gave 20 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
Rs.50,000/- to A1 in the presence of A2 to provide job in Courts. They assured they will provide job through A3 and A4 but they did not get any job. A1 gave receipt for the amount paid by her. When she insisted for payment, A1 and A2 joined as members in the plots scheme run by her husband in Sri Mitra
Estates Pvt. Ltd., and deposited Rs.9,000/- each. In the cross examination, she deposed A2 was not present when she gave amount to A1 but she denied the suggestion that A2 is no way concerned with assurance that she will get job.
PW14 M. Jagan Mohan Reddy
Description/He is another victim deposed that A1 and A2 are his gistdistant relatives and A3 and A4 are Court employees.
In May, 1999 he paid Rs.32,500/- to A2 in the presence of A1, A3 and A4. Again he paid another amount of Rs.17,500/- after one week. All accused assured him that he will get Record Asst., job in City
Civil Court. A3 and A4 had shown selected list of candidates, but they came to know said list is bogus list. On 22-02-2001, PW1 gave report and he was examined by police. He produced original receipt given by A2 in Family Court at the time of
Departmental Enquiry.
PW15 Chimala Anjamma 21 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
Description/ She is another victim deposed that on 05-10-1999 gistshe paid Rs.40,000/- to A2 at his house in the presence of A1, A3 and A4. All of them assured her that she will get Record Asst., job in City Civil Court.
That A1 executed a promissory note on behalf of A2, but accused failed to provide her any job. When she demanded the return of amount, one Srinivas Reddy brother of A2 threatened her. PW1 gave report to police on 22-01-2001. She was examined by police.
PW16 R. Linga Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that his wife is distant gistrelative to the wife of A2. A1 is father-in-law of A2. In
January, 2000 wife of A2 informed his wife that A2 is providing jobs in Courts. When he approached A1, he asked him to come in the evening accordingly he went to house of A2, where A3 and A4 were present.
A1 demanded Rs.1,00,000/- to provide job in Courts for him and his brother-in-law Shekar Reddy. On 23- 01-2000, he gave Rs.1,00,000/- cash to A2. A1 counted the currency notes and gave said amount to
A2. A2 received the cash. Thereafter accused failed to provide him and his brother-in-law any jobs. He waited for one year. PW1 lodged complaint to police.
Accused persons collected amounts from (40) others.
22 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
He was examined by police. A1 issued him receipt for
Rs.1,00,000/-, because A2 is employee.
Document/Ex.P9 is receipt issued by A1.
material object marked, if any
PW17 Chirra Rajender Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that A1 is his relative.
gistIn February, 2000 he informed about some vacancies
in the Court. He assured him to provide job of Jr.
Asst., in the Court. PW17 gave Rs.50,000/- to A1 at his house. He introduced A3 and A4 who were employees in the Court and further assured that through them he will provide the job. He met A3 and
A4 in the house of A1 but they failed to provide him any job. On his demand A3 paid Rs.25,000/- and issued cheque for remaining amount on 10-10- 2000. When he presented the cheque it was dishonoured. A3 assured that he will make payment of balance. Hence, he waited without filing cheque dishonour case. He came to know about (40) persons gave amount to accused to get jobs. PW1 lodged complaint in the year 2001 to police. Police 23 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
examined him.
Document/Ex.P10 is cheque dt. 10-10-2000 along with cheque materialreturn memo.
object marked, if any
PW18 B. Mohan Reddy
Description/He is another victim deposed that A1 is his relative. In gistthe year 2000 he came to know A1 is providing jobs
in the Courts. He approached A1 to get job to his two
sons and paid Rs.80,000/-. A1 gave receipt subsequently he failed to provide any job to his sons.
He came to know about role of A3 and A4 working in
Civil Court behind A1. He approached A3 and A4.
Again he approached A1. They did not pay him any amount and asked him to go away.
This witness deposed that he does not know A2.
When learned Addl. P.P obtained permission of the
Court and put the questions in the nature of cross examination this witness denied the role of A2 that he was present, when he paid amount to A1.
A1 to A4 did not choose to cross examine this witness.
24 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
Document/Ex.P11 Relevant portion of statement of PW18 under materialSection 161 Cr.P.C., was marked by prosecution.
object marked, if any
PW19 B. Krishna Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that he knows A1, he gistapproached him on 16-07-1999 and gave Rs.30,000/- to provide job to his son in the Court through A3 and
A4 who are working in the Courts subsequently they failed to provide job to his sons. He approached A1 to repay the amount. He did not pay the amount and asked him to go away. All victims in the hands of accused gave report to police and he was examined by police.
This witness deposed that he does not know A2.
PW20 G. Lakshminarayana Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that his father knows gistA1. In June, 1999 he went to the house of A2 and paid Rs.50,000/- as accused promised to provide a job to him in the Court. Later he approached accused several times but they did not provide job. A3
executed promissory note in his favour.
25 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
Later he came to know several others were also cheated by accused. All of them went to police station. PW1 gave report.
In the cross examination, he deposed that A3 paid
Rs.20,000/- to him.
Document/Ex.P12 is promissory note executed by A3.
material object marked, if any
PW21 T. Venu Gopal Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that A1 is his relative.
gistIn June, 1999 he approached A1 and A2 who assured to provide him job in City Civil Court with the help of
A3 and A4 who are Court employees. In June, 1999 he paid Rs.50,000/- in the house of A2 and at that time all A1 to A4 were present. Later they did not provide him job. A4 issued cheque for Rs.50,000/- in the name of father of this witness. All victims including himself went to police station. PW1 gave report. He was examined by police.
Document/Ex.P13 is cheque issued by A4 material object 26 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
marked, if any
PW22 M. Narasinga Rao
Description/ He is another victim deposed that in 1999 A1 gistinformed him about some vacancies for the post of
Attender in City Civil Court. A1 asked him to meet A2.
A2 assured him that he will provide job through A3 and A4, if he gives money. On that he gave
Rs.25,000/- to A2. Said transaction took place at the house of A1 and later said house was found to be locked. All victims went to police station. PW1 gave report. He was examined by police.
PW23 D. Sudhakar Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that on 12-08-1999 he gistpaid Rs.50,000/- to A2 in his house and at that time other accused were present. All accused assured that they will provide clerk post in City Civil Court through
A3 and A4 who are Court employees. A1 executed promissory note for Rs.50,000/- later accused failed to provide any job and on repeated requests, A1 paid
Rs.25,000/- and absconded later. All victims went to police station. PW1 gave report there. He was examined by police.
27 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
PW24 Challa Jaipal Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that in the year 1999 gisthe gave Rs.50,000/- to A3 in the presence of A1, A2 and A4 in the house of A2 as they assured to provide a job to his daughter in the Court. He knows A3 and
A4 are working in Courts. After seven months, he came to know accused cheated several others like him. He demanded accused to return the amount. A3 issued a cheque and returned Rs.25,000/- to him, when said cheque was presented it was dishnoured.
Said cheque was later stolen by some unknown persons in the month of November, 2004. Several victims approached police and gave report. He was examined by police.
PW25 K. Goverdhan Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that on 27-06-1999 he gistgave Rs.20,000/- to A1 in the presence of A3 and A4 to secure Attender post in the Court. They failed to provide any job, he demanded A3 and A4 to repay the amount. They postponed on some pretext. He deposed A1 was not present when he paid amount.
On the report of PW1, the statement of this witness was also recorded by police.
28 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
In the cross examination, he deposed he did not met
A2 at any time.
PW26 S. Shekar Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that in the year 2000 gisthe approached A1 through one Karunakar Reddy and
A1 promised him to provide a job in the Court. On 20- 02-2000, he met A1 in the house of A2 and gave
Rs.50,000/- to A1 to get job. A1 executed promissory note, but no job was provided to him. When other victims also approached police, case was registered and police examined him. A1 returned Rs.20,000/- to him.
In the cross-examination he deposed A2 is not concerned with this case.
PW27 B. Karunakar Reddy
Description/He is another victim deposed that he gave gistRs.40,000/- to A1 in the presence of A2 to A4 that they will provide job to him in Courts. Thereafter they did not provide job. A1 returned Rs.20,000/- after that all victims went to police station and gave report. Police examined him.
He denied the suggestion that at the time of 29 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
payment of amount, A2 was not present.
PW28 B. Shekar Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that on 25-02-1999 A1 gisttook an amount of Rs.50,000/- saying that he will provide job in the Court at that time A1 and A3 were also present. He waited for two years and approached them. They did not provide job. A1 returned Rs.20,000/- to him. He knows names of seven others who suffered in the hands of accused like him.
In the cross-examination he deposed that he does not know A2 and he did not see him. He deposed that he paid the amount in a house, but he does not know to whom it belongs to.
PW29 S. Sanjeeva Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that on 20-02-2000 he gistapproached A1, A3 and A4 that they will provide job in Courts. On that he gave Rs.50,000/- to A1 through
PW2, who introduced him but they did not provide job. He approached them for about one year, but did not get job. A1 returned Rs.20,000/-. Accused cheated him. He was examined by police.
30 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
In the cross-examination, he deposed he does not know A2, he did not see him and he did not give any amount to A2.
PW30 J. Vishnuvardhan Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that through PW2 he gistcame to know A1, A3 and A4. In the year 2000 they stated to him that they will secure a job to him in
Courts. Then he paid Rs.35,000/- through PW2 through A1 but they did not provide him any job. He waited for one year then he approached PW2 at that time A1 paid Rs.20,000/- to him. Accused cheated him and others. He was examined by police.
In the cross-examination, he deposed he does not know A2. He came to know A1 through PW2 and entire transaction took place through PW2.
PW31 D. Ravi Kumar
Description/He is another victim deposed that in the year 1999 gistLW37/ Anjaneyulu took him to the house of A1. A1 assured that he will provide him a job in Court with the help of A3 and A4. He paid Rs.40,000/- to A1.
Thereafter he pursued the matter and met A2 to A4.
They also assured that they will provide him a job.
After that matter was placed before police and he 31 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
was examined by police.
In the cross-examination this witness denied the role of A2 that he is not connected to this case.
PW32 K. Anjaneyulu
Description/He is another victim deposed that in the year 1999 gistone Jyothi daughter of brother of A1 introduced A1 to him and he assured providing jobs in Courts. He asked Rs.50,000/-. PW32 paid Rs.25,000/- to A1 in the house of A2 in the presence of Jyothi. A1 assured to provide job with the help of A3 and A4, who are
Court employees. A1 failed to provide job. In the year 2001 criminal case was registered in P.S. Saroornagar and it was published in news paper. After seeing the news item, he approached police and he was examined by police.
In the cross-examination, he deposed that receipt was issued by A1. He denied the suggestion that A2 to A4 are not connected with his case.
PW33 S. Raju
Description/Another victim deposed that he paid Rs.45,000/- to gistA1 in the house of A2 his son-in-law in June, 1999.
That A1 promised to provide job in the Court through
A3 and A4 who are Court employees. A1 did not 32 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
provide any job and cheated him. In 2001, the matter was reported to police by victims. He was examined by police.
In the cross-examination, he admitted A2 is not directly connected to his transaction. He gave amount to A1 and A1 gave a cheque to him. At that time, A2 was working in Syndicate Bank as Manager at Adilabad.
PW34 Y. Sanjeeva Kumar
Description/ He is another victim deposed that in July, 1999 he gistpaid Rs.45,000/- to A1 who was introduced by PW33.
A1 assured this witness that he will get job in Court through A3 and A4 and they are Court employees. All of them assured to provide him a job but they failed.
They cheated him. In 2001, he came to know criminal case was registered against them in P.S. Saroornagar.
He approached police and police recorded his statement.
In the cross-examination, he deposed amount was given to A1 and he gave receipt. This witness denied the role of A2 as not connected with his transaction.
PW35 A. Sathyanarayana Reddy
Description/ He is another victim deposed that he approached A1 33 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
gistin the year 2000 and he assured him to provide driver post in the Court through A3 and A4. On that he gave
Rs.35,000/- to A1 in the house of A2 in the presence of A2 to A4. Later he came to know several others were also cheated in the hands of accused (80 members) A1 gave a receipt to him. He was examined by police.
In the cross-examination he denied the role of A2 that he was not present on 10-01-2000 being working day and A2 was working at his Bank in
Adilabad.
PW36 Ranga Rao
Description/He is panch witness to confession and recovery gistpanchanama, he turned hostile he admitted his signature as Ex.P14.
Document/Ex.P14 is signature of this witness on confession- materialcum-recovery panchanama.
object marked, if any
PW37 B. Muthaiah
Description/He is panch witness for confession and recovery gistpanchanama, he turned hostile he admitted his 34 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
signature as Ex.P15.
Document/Ex.P15 is signature of this witness on confession- materialcum-recovery panchanama.
object marked, if any
PW38 K.V.L. Narasimha
Description/He is Investigating Officer in this case. He registered gistthe case on complainant given by PW1 along with others on 22-02-2001 for the offences under Section 420, 506 IPC, he issued FIR. He apprehended accused persons and recorded their confession statement in the presence of PW35 and PW36 and recovered dairies and books and list of names from possession of A1. He effected arrest of accused and produced them for remand. He completed investigation and filed charge sheet. Ex.P16 to P20 are case property but they being documents learned Magistrate marked them as exhibits in documentary evidence on prosecution side.
Document/Ex.P16 are the entries entered in Diary 1999 at Pg.
materialNo. 2-4-1999 to 7-5-1999 object Ex.P17 is the entries entered in the diary in Pg. No. 1- 1-1999 to 7-2-1999 35 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
marked,Ex.P18 are the entries made in long note book page if anyNos. 1 to 9 and 4 pages from the last
Ex.P19 is the list of the candidates of
S. Yugandhrachary, M. Nagireddy containing 3 pages
Ex.P20 is selected candidates list, Yugandhrachary,
M. Nagireddy, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 containing 2 pages
PW39 G. Krishna Mohan Reddy
Description/ He is Hon’ble District Judge, Family Court, gistHyderabad, City Civil Court, then working as Hon’ble
Justice High Court of Andhra Pradesh
He deposed that he was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry against delinquent employees after Sri. P. Jagannadha Rao, his predecessor Judge.
He examined PWs1 to 10, marked Exs.P1 to P11 on the side of Department and examined DWs1 and 2 and marked Ex.D1 to D5. He submitted his inquiry report in Ex.P21 dt. 19-11-2024
In the cross-examination, he deposed his report is comprehensive speaking about all the issues involved in the case.
Document/Ex.P21 inquiry report dt. 19-11-2024 against A3 and materialA4 in the Departmental Enquiry. A3/ Yogender it 36 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
objectappears called with alias name as Yugendhar in marked,Department as per Ex.P21. There is no dispute on his if anyidentity.
DW1 K. Pratap Reddy
Description/He is accused no.,2 at relevant time. He worked as gistBranch Manager in Sri Saraswathi Grameena Bank at
Nirmal and Beeravelly respectively. He deposed that from 15-10-1998 till 18-09-1999 he worked at Nirmal
Branch. Thereafter from 20-09-1999 till July, 2002 he worked at Beeravelly Branch. He obtained ration card from MRO Sarangapur, Adilabad District showing names of his wife, two sons. According to him his children studied at St. Joseph’s Convent High
School, Adilabad District from 1993 to 1998 and later in St. Thomos High School from 1998 to 1999. His younger son studied in LKG to I class at Nirmal from 1999 to 2001. He got two sons namely K. Nitish
Reddy and K. Rohan Reddy. Both of them studied at
Adilabad and Nirmal respectively. According to A2, he resided continuously in said place. He did not visit on all alleged dates to said house at Telephone
Colony, Saroornagar. He filed Ex.D1/ telephone bill in the name of A1/ G. Krishna Reddy as resident of alleged house where transactions between A1 and victims took place. Basing on the telephone 37 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
connection in the name of A1, this DW1/ A2 is submitting that he is no way concerned with the house and he did not reside there at relevant time.
He produced Ex.D2 pink ration card for the period from 1992 to 1996 showing his family members viz., wife and two sons. According to address mentioned on this ration card, he was at Beeravelly. He filed
Ex.D3 copy of driving license obtained at Manjulapur,
Nirmal.
Let us suppose that A2 resided with his family and worked at Nirmal and Beeravelly as deposed. A1 is father-in-law of A2. In connection with the case transaction, A2 must have visited house of his father- in-law where he is residing i.e., at Saroornagar, the place where all case transactions took place because of relationship between A1 and A2. This Court need not go into ownership of said addressed house in
Telephone Colony, Saroornagar as A1 is father-in-law of A2 and it cannot be ruled out that A2 visited there in connection with case transactions. He produced leave record from Nirmal Branch of Sri Saraswathi
Grameena Bank for the period shown. The competent authority who issued said register extract was not examined at relevant time. DW1/ A2 may be the leave granting authority for other staff members in the bank. A2 did not examine his leave granting 38 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
authority to prove genuineness of Ex.D4. Even if said said leave record is believed as correct and genuine, this Court discusses on the aspect of non access by
A2 at case mentioned addressed house in Telephone
Colony, Saroornagar on relevant dates deposed by complainant and victims in this case. The Court will examine whether this accused established his plea of alibi in the body of discussion in appeal. He produced
Ex.D5 attendance register of Beeravelly Branch for
September, 1999, October, 1999, November, 1999,
January, 2000 to June, 2000. Basing on this attendance record, whether accused could rule out possibility of his presence in the night times at
Telephone Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad on relevant dates as deposed by complainant and victims will be examined in the body of discussion.
Document/Ex.D1 Telephone bill material Ex.D2 Attested copy of Ration Card of DW1 object Ex.D3 Attested copy of Driving License of DW1 marked, if any Ex.D4 True copy of leave record of DW1 for the month of November, 1998 to June 1999 issued by
Branch Manager, Sri Saraswathi Grameena Bank,
Nirmal Branch, Adilabad District.
39 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
Ex.D5 True copy of attendance register for the month of September, 1999 to June 2000.
6) During prosecution evidence, PW1 to PW39 were examined, out of them PW1 to PW35 are victims in the hands of A1 to A4, by the time the case came for trial, A1 died and trial proceedings went on against A2 to A4 only. On the side of prosecution, Ex.P1 to P21 are marked and on the side of defence, Ex.D1 to D5 are marked.
Accused no.,2 by name Kotha Pratap Reddy entered the witness box as DW1 and gave evidence. He produced Ex.D1 to D5 in his defence. When appeals are pending A4 also died hence this case against A1 and A4 dismissed as abated.
7)At the outset, those were the days where Notification for recruitment in the District Courts/ City Civil Court, Hyderabad and procedure of recruitment being followed now a days was not in vogue and not adopted by then. At that time, Hon’ble Chief Judge,
City Civil Court was the competent authority to take up recruitment of ministerial staff in the Unit. Now the Hon’ble High Court is issuing the notification, monitoring, conducting and supervising the entire process of the selection.
40 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
A3/ Sumoju Yogender was working as Attender only at 8) relevant time, A4/ Mukkarla Nagi Reddy was working as Record
Asst., at that time. By showing the tag as employees in Judicial
Department, they played fraud to deceive several victims. A1/
Gudati Krishna Reddy is retired teacher and A2/ Kotha Pratap
Reddy is his son-in-law, working as Branch Manager in Saraswathi
Grameena Bank at Nirmal Adilabad. Their residence is shown as Plot
No. 126, Road No. 3, Telephone Colony, Saroornagar. Though A1 actually belongs to Gundur village, Kalwakurthy Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District, he used to visit and stay often in the house of A2/ Pratap Reddy at Telephone Colony, R.K. Puram, Saroornagar.
In this house only, many of the transactions pertaining to this case took place. In this case, P. Bal Reddy/ PW1 lodged a report on 22- 02-2001 in evening hours before the Inspector of Police,
Saroornagar P.S., saying that A2 resident of Plot No. 126, Road
No.3, Telephone Colony, R.K. Puram is acquainted to him. He lured him uttering that he will provide government employment to PW1 and demanded Rs.40,000/-. When he assured and promised that he will provide the job, he paid said amount on 06-12-1999 at his house to A2. At that time, A1 being father-in-law had issued a 41 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
receipt to that effect. Since then, they prolonged showing him an employment. When he demanded return of the amount, A2 threatened him that he will see his end. In May, 2000 when he made demand firmly, A1 and A2 locked the house and absconded. By the date of report, said house was kept under lock. He along with six others with names given and several others are victims in the hands of accused.
9)According to investigation of police as per charge sheet,
PW1/ complainant along with several others are found to be victims in the hands of accused. Police could examine (46) victims in all including complainant during investigation. Police collected necessary documents like receipts, promissory notes, cheques etc., given to victims by accused persons. Police examined all victims and recorded their statements. A1 to A4 taking advantage of the need of innocent un-employees, they gained their confidence by making false promises and false representations that they will provide employment for all victims/ witnesses in the City Civil Court,
Hyderabad. Thus induced them and collected money from them.
LW1 to LW46 listed in charge sheet had parted with money and 42 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
thereby A1 to A4 are punishable for the offences under Section 420, 506 IPC and Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
In this case, apart from listed witnesses who were examined, 10) there are certain other victims who could not be examined by prosecution. They are LW12/ Chenreddy Chandra Reddy, LW14/
Malreddy Devender Reddy, LW21/ Vissa Chenchalaiah, LW22/
Gurudanti Shankar Reddy, LW23/ Karnekota Balilingoji, LW25/
Rowthu Samba Murthy, LW26/ Yanam Kondal Reddy, LW35/ Kuna
Chandra Shekar, LW39/ Dendi Mahipal Reddy, LW43/ Reddy Kondal
Reddy and LW44/ S. Krishna Mohan. Other victims as listed witnesses are all examined by prosecution.
As per charge sheet, on 02-03-2001 at 09:00 PM police 11) apprehended A1 to A4 in the above address i.e., at Telephone
Colony, R.K. Puram, that is residence of A2. Police recorded confession panchanama of A1 to A4 in the presence of LW47/ A.
Sathyanarayana Reddy and LW48/ Ranga Rao (examined as PWs35 and 36) and seized one long note book, two diaries, lists containing names of victims total five papers. Thereafter police arrested them and produced them for remand. According to the investigation, A3 43 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
and A4 being employees in City Civil Court, Hyderabad along with
A1 and A2 all of them lured innocent victims, who are un- employees. A3 and A4 claimed that they were having influence
before Judges and could help to get a job in City Civil Court,
Hyderabad. There are more than (100) vacancies. Complainant and certain victims approached A3 and A4 through their relatives A1/
Gudati Krishna Reddy and A2/ K. Pratap Reddy for the purpose of getting a job to his brother’s son, himself/ herself or family member etc., A1, A2 came into contact with A3 and A4 and developed acquaintance among them. A3 and A4 already cheated several persons, aspiring to get a job. They convinced A1 and A2 to get more persons because there are more than (100) vacancies in City
Civil Court and they can arrange to get appointment orders. All of them came to an understanding that they can share the amounts collected by them from job aspirants. They started operation of their activity collecting amount illegally from job aspirants from the house of A2 at Telephone Colony, R.K. Puram. They convinced LWs1 to 36 and others that they will provide job and collected huge amounts from them. They issued receipts, promissory notes, cheques etc., to gain confidence of victims. Accused were having 44 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
fraudulent intention and collected the amount from victims. When victims realized about foul play of accused and started demanding return of amount because they failed to provide jobs, accused dodged the matter on some pretext. When victims were insisting to pay amounts, accused started threatening them with dire consequences. They gained confidence of victims, by making false promises and false representations.
12)Learned Magistrate appreciated oral and documentary evidence on proper lines.
Only PWs18, 36 and 37 turned hostile and failed to 13) support the version of prosecution and their evidence was discarded on correct lines. Out of other witnesses, Pws17, 19, 25, 27 to 30 deposed to some extent by exonerating the liability of A2.
Hence, learned Magistrate stated evidence of these witnesses cannot be discarded in whole. It may be considered as incriminating evidence against A1, A3 and A4. Out of PWs1 to 35, only (07) witnesses gave favourable version to A2 saying that he did not play any role in the transactions made by them with A1, A3 and A4. All other witnesses gave positive and cogent evidence about role of all 45 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
A1 to A4 and it has to be relied upon. In the cross examination of these witnesses, nothing useful could be elicited by learned advocate of A1 to A4. The main defence of A2 is that at relevant time, he was working at Adilabad in Grameena Bank as Manager. He produced attendance record etc., to show the same, but still his non access during relevant time with the transactions that took place during November, December 1999 and upto February, March 2000 cannot be ruled out. The attendance record showing his attendance during bank hours cannot rule out the possibility of presence of A2 in the night time at Hyderabad at Telephone
Colony, Saroornagar. None of the witnesses had deposed that they met A2 during banking hours at his house. Hence, the defence of
A2 has to fail, though he produced Ex.D1 to D5. Out of them Ex.D4 and D5 are leave record of accused no.,2 for the period during
November, 1998 to June, 1999 and attendance register from
September, 1999 to June, 2000. His employment at Adilabad was not denied by any witnesses. They deposed about his presence at night time at his residence at Hyderabad.
In order to prove offence of cheating under Section 420 14)
IPC, the essential ingredients that are required to be proved by 46 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
prosecution are fraudulent or dishonest intention of accused while inducing and the delivery in property (money) out of deception shall have to be examined. In this case on hand, A1 and A2 are no way concerned with Judicial Department, but still they had shown the tag employment of A3 and A4 in City Civil Court, Hyderabad, A3 and A4 already cheated several others persons and through this A1 and A2 they lured victims in this case. At the outset, all of them knew they are not the competent authority to give employment to any Ministerial staff member in City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Hence, the promises and assurances made by them were made only with fraudulent and dishonest intention to induce the victims. This is a case where the victims one after the other when they paid money used to bring other victims, in their known circles because of the extent they believed these accused persons. This accused no.,1 to 4 deceived all of them with fraudulent and dishonest intention induced all of them that they will provide employment/ jobs in City
Civil Court, Hyderabad. They made relevant entries in the two diaries and long note book in Ex.P16 to P18 showing not only the victims cited by police, but several others more than (130) 47 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
members. Police examined only few of them and cited as witnesses.
The prosecution also produced Ex.P19 to P20 lists of candidates.
There is positive and cogent evidence from direct 15) witnesses, who got victimized in the hands of accused. All of them were induced by A1 to A4. These victims innocently believed all A1 to A4 that they will provide employment. Only with a fond hope that they may get employment, they gave certain amounts. The main reason for believing A1 and A2 is the tag employment of A3 and A4. As a common man, they may not know that A3 working as an Attender and A4 working as a Record Asst., are not the competent persons to give employment to any staff members.
Many of them are relatives of A1 and A2 and because of relationship also, they reposed faith and confidence in A1 and A2.
A1 was a retired teacher by that time and A2 is a working Manager in a bank. A layman is not expected to know their capacity and they got convinced with claim made by accused persons though they are not competent to fulfill the promises and false assurances being given. In the name of employment as an aspirant, every victim and his close relative got cheated in the hands of A1 to A4. This is a case of direct evidence. Simply because A2 was a working Manager at 48 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
relevant time at Adilabad District, he cannot escape liability by producing Ex.D1 to D5. Ex.D1 to D3 are telephone bill, the attested copy of ration card and driving license of A2. Learned Magistrate appreciated oral and documentary evidence on record on correct lines.
16)According to grounds of appeal submitted by A2 and A3 in this two appeals, they gave submissions on appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses like this.
On the evidence of PW1/ P. Bal Reddy when he deposed 17) that he gave Rs.40,000/- on 06-12-1999 to A2, A2/ appellant is contending that he was not at Hyderabad on that day. He produced
Ex.D5 showing that he was working at Saraswathi Grameena Bank,
Beeravelly Branch on that particular day. A3 submitted in his grounds of appeal that version of PW1 saying that A2 introduced
A3 and A4 as deposed by him in the Court for the first time cannot be taken on record because he did not give this version to police, when they examined him.
On the evidence of PW2/ B. Jagath Reddy, A2 submitted 18) that PW2 deposed that he gave Rs.40,000/- to A2 on 22-06-1999 49 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
but A2 was working at Sri Saraswathi Grameena Bank, Nirmal
Branch on that relevant day and he was not at Hyderabad. A3 and
A4 submitted that the version of PW2 should not be considered because he did not state A3 and A4 were introduced by A2 to him.
On the evidence of PW3/ Challa Lal Reddy, when he 19) deposed he gave Rs.45,000/- on 13-06-1999 and Rs.5,000/- on 24-06-1999 to A2 but receipt was issued by A1 only, A2 submitted that on relevant dates he was working at Nirmal Branch on two particular days. A3 and A4 submitted that as per evidence of PW3 he did not pay any amount to A3 or A4. Hence, his version cannot be applied against them.
On the evidence of PW4/ E. Swarnalatha, when she 20) deposed that she gave Rs.37,000/- to A2 in January, 2000. She gave a particular date, when she was examined by police that she gave said amount to accused on 25-01-2000. On that particular day, A2 was working at Beeravelly Branch. A3 and A4 submitted in their appeal against evidence of PW4 contending that she did not pay any amount to A3 or A4. They did not assure PW4 that they will provide any job.
50 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
On the evidence of PW5/ Challa Rajitha, when she 21) deposed that in July, 1999 her husband paid Rs.40,000/- to A2 for which A1 gave receipt, that she stated to police that receipt for
Rs.30,000/- only was given and no receipt for Rs.10,000/- was given by A1. She did not give specific date in July, 1999 as to when she allegedly paid any amount to A1 or A2. A2 in his grounds to appeal submitted that he did not apply for any kind of leave during July, 1999. He was working at Nirmal Branch, Adilabad. A2 referred date of payment of PW5 as 22-06-1999 according to him in grounds of appeal and submitted that he was at Nirmal on that day, but not at Hyderabad. A3 and A4 submitted that PW5 did not pay any amount to A3 or A4 at any point of time. She paid amount to A1.
However, she deposed A3 and A4 were present when she gave amount to A1.
On the evidence of PW6/ Sudini Susmitha, when she 22) deposed that she paid Rs.50,000/- to A2 at his house in November, 1999 and A1 issued receipts, A2 submitted that in the statement given by PW6 to police she stated she gave amount to A1 but not
A2 and she did not tell any dates specifically. A3 and A4 opposed her evidence on the ground that PW6 did not pay any amount to A3 51 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
or A4. However, she deposed about presence of A3 and A4 when she paid amount to A2.
23)On the evidence of PW7/ D. Srinivasa Reddy who deposed he gave Rs.1,50,000/- to A2 in December, 1999, A2 pointed out in grounds of appeal that in his statement given to police, PW7 stated he gave two cheques for said amount but he did not mention dates specifically. A3, A4 opposed the evidence of
PW7 saying that he did not pay amounts to A3 or A4. They did not assure him to provide job.
On the evidence of PW8/ G. Ravinder who deposed that 24) he gave Rs.50,000/- to A1 and A2 and A1 had given cheque on behalf of A2 because A2 was a Government Employee and said transaction took place in the house of A2, A2 is pointing out in grounds of appeal that PW8 in his statement given to police told the date as 04-04-2000 and on behalf of this accused allegedly, A1 gave receipt. A2 submitted he was working at Beeravelly Branch,
Adilabad on that date. A3 and A4 submitted that PW8 did not pay any amount to them and they did not assure him to provide any job.
52 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
In the same lines, A2, A3 contested both appeals on 25) similar grounds pointing out minor discrepancies. Ex.P6 is receipt in favour of PW1, Ex.P20 is receipt in favour of PW2. Ex.P7 is cheque issued by A1 marked through PW8. This is a case where A2 is contending that he was working at Nirmal and Beeravelly of
Adilabad District at relevant time and produced attendance record.
The distance between Nirmal and Saroornagar, R.R. District is about 257 kilometers and time of travel may be around 4 hours 35 minutes. The distance between Beeravelly, Adilabad District and
Sarrornagar, Hyderabad is about 268 kilometers and time of travel may be around 4 hours 51 minutes. That means in 5 hours, there is probability of A2 to reach his house at Saroornagar. All prosecution witnesses deposed about payment of money in the house of accused no.,2 during night time, but not during his working bank hours. Hence, the attendance record cannot improbablize the receipts of amounts paid and demands made by complainant and victims. As a matter of precaution, A2 did not issue receipts in writing. He made A1 to issue receipts on his behalf. All prosecution witnesses deposed about presence of A3 and A4. Only because they are employees of City Civil Court by then, complainant and 53 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
victims believed that they make things possible and paid amounts to A1 and A2. Few of them paid amounts to A3 also. Pending of appeal filed by A3 and A4, A4 died and case against him abated.
Death of A4 was reported in March, 2022 in Crl. Appeal No.
652/2018. Police may ascertain his death as they did not file death certificate of A4 till conclusion of appeal proceedings.
DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LEARNED ADVOCATE OF A2 & A3:
1. Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.,
Supreme Court of India (From Jammu & Kashmir) (F.B.) 2022
LawSuit (SC) 866. In this case trial Court thought it fit to discharge accused persons from the offence of murder and proceeded to frame charge for the offence of culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC only taking into consideration the medical evidence on record.
This modification of charge on the basis of postmortem report is not relevant to the present case on hand and it relates to discharge of accused persons from the offence of murder and proceeding against them only for the offence of culpable homicide.
54 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
2. Munshi Prasad and Ors., vs. State of Bihar AIR 2001 Supreme
Court 3031. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld conviction by confirming the credibility of prosecution witnesses and witness testimony, despite defence claims on a false implications. The reading of this cited case emphasized need of strict scrutiny of evidence of witnesses, evaluation of witness credibility and the handling of procedure delays.
In this present case on hand, evidence of each victim has been scruitinized and evaluted by learned Magistrate and also by this
Appellate Court. They are all victims in the hands of A1 to A4. As on today, A1 and A4 died and case against them abated. Though A2 and A3 prosecuted both the appeals alleging they are falsely implicated in this case, there is positive and cogent evidence and their liability is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The complainant and other victims are not having any intention to falsely implicate A2 and A3 the appellants here.
3. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan vs. Bipin Kumar,
Supreme Court of India (D.B.) 2004 LawSuit (SC) 27. This is a case relating to reducing the compensation amount with genuine 55 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
comparable sales and excluding stamp duty benchmarks referred by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. After perusing the nature of cited case, this appellate Court answers it is not relevant for defence.
4. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court of India (From Allahabad) (D.B.) 1981 LawSuit (SC) 83. This is a land mark Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the plea of alibi.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that when accused takes plea of alibi, the burden of proof lies on him. In this case, accused produced relevant attendance record and leave record but still he failed to disprove the case of prosecution with reasonable probability. This Court is not insisting A2 to prove his defence with absolute certainty. The distance between Beeravelly to
Saroornagar and Nirmal to Saroornagar and time travel contemplated cannot improbablize his presence at his residence during night time, even though he was working on alleged particular dates, when victims paid money to A2. This appellant/ A2 tried to take advantage of his working days during relevant time in his bank, but still he cannot escape liability. He took a precaution by making A1 to issue receipts, but several prosecution witnesses 56 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
deposed about presence of A2 and got lured by him. In the first set of prosecution list witnesses, many of them are relatives of A1 and
A2 and they brought certain others also and all of them got victimized. In this case, proof of alibi even by reasonable probability was not made out to disprove his presence at his residence, during night time as deposed by prosecution witnesses.
5. Hallu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court of India (From Madhya Pradesh) (D.B.) 1974 LawSuit (SC) 104. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court overturned conviction imposed by
Hon’ble High Court and resorted to acquittal as per Judgment
passed by the trial Court in a case of murder. It was held when two reasonable views of evidence exist, the Court should not overturn an acquittal especially regarding discrepancies any by witnesses, testimony and medical evidence.
At the outset, the major offences in this case are not referring to offence against human body. It is an offence against property. It is an offence of cheating, luring complainant and several victims in the name of providing job in City Civil Court. In this case, the scrutiny of eye witnesses or victims need not be that strict when 57 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
compared to a case of murder. Hence, the decision above cannot be applied. Further this is not a case where trial Court passed a
Judgment of acquittal and this Court is sitting in appeal against
Judgment of conviction. Even the standard of presumption of innocence in favour of A2 is below when compared to his position in appeal against Judgment of acquittal.
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor relied upon the decision in 26)
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat 1983 Crl.L.J.
1096, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. Omissions and contradictions, if any, they need not be considered with hyper technicalities. Following principles are laid down about minor discrepancies.
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
58 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
(2) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(3) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(4) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense if individuals which varies from person to person.
(5) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(6) A witness, through wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the 59 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.
Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all-important “probabilities-factor” echoes in favor of the version narrated by the witnesses.
In this case Ex.P21 Inquiry Report against A3 and A4 is filed. It 27) was given by the then District Judge, who was Inquiry Judge conducting Departmental Enquiry against A3 and A4 as they were regular employees in City Civil Court. It shows the examination of (10) witnesses and marking of Ex.P1 to P11. Basing on this, this
Court accepts the version of prosecution witnesses. Accused persons had presented promissory note and receipts in Ex.P1, P7,
P10 and P11. In said Departmental Enquiry, neither A3 nor A4 got examined as witnesses. They examined third parties as DWs1 and 2.
The Hon’ble Inquiry Judge discussed the role of A3 and A4 in detail in the subject fraud and submitted his report concluding that charge leveled against them is established. It referred A3 as
S. Yugender here he is referred as S. Yogender. The charge against him in Departmental Enquiry with all probabilities that he along 60 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
with A4/ M. Nagi Reddy are involved in cheating case i.e., Cr. No.
30/2000 herein of Mirchowk P.S. giving a finding that they cheated complainant and other victims by misusing their official position.
There was a prima-facie case made out against both delinquents amounting to misconduct in discipline as per disciplinary proceedings in that Departmental Enquiry.
In this criminal case, standard of proof is higher when 28) compared to the proof required in a Departmental Enquiry. Taking into consideration that there is strong material against A3 and A4 also this Court is not satisfied with the grounds of appeal submitted by them. They cannot escape liability simply because many of the victims made payments to A2 or A1, few of them made payments to A3 also. All complainant and prosecution witnesses/ victims deposed names, role of A3 and A4, their presence and participation in the offence of cheating. Hence, the guilt of A3 and
A4 as required in a criminal case is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, had been established. The grounds of appeal submitted by
A3 in all respects shall have to fail. There is positive and cogent evidence showing his role in the offence. Though he was only an
Attender at that relevant time, being a regular employee of City 61 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
Civil Court, he abused his official position and claimed that he along with A4 can manage things to any extent to get employment to nearly (100) members. A3 and A4 made A1 and A2 collect huge amounts from several persons with common object and common intention. In furtherance their object, they intended to share the amounts collected from the victims illegally among them. It is not the case of A3 that he got over said enquiry report in Departmental proceedings before any appellate authority either on administrative side or on judicial side. This report against him in
Ex.P21 makes out strong prima-facie case against him in a criminal case. Further more the evidence of prosecution witnesses giving role of A3 and A4 in the offence of cheating committed is established. It is pertinent to mention here A3 and A4 prepared a fake selection list and made victims believe that they got selected.
This is a case where charges were framed for the 29) offences under Section 506 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act also. Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act deals with,
7. Molesting a person to prejudice of employment or business (1) Whoever 62 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
(a) with intent to cause any person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such person has a right to do or to abstain from doing, obstructs or uses violence to or intimidates such person or any member of his family or person in his employ, or loiters at or near a place where such person or member or employed person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or persistently follows him from place to place, or interferes with any property owned or used by him or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof, or
(b) loiters or does any similar act at or near the place where a person carries on business, in such a way and with intent that any person may thereby be deterred from entering or approaching or dealing at such place, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Explanation. Encouragement of indigenous industries or advocacy of temperance, without the commission of any of the acts prohibited by this section is not an offence under this section.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except upon a report in writing of facts which constitute such offence made by a police officer not below the rank of officer in charge of a police station.
Learned Magistrate discussed oral and documentary evidence 30) and acquitted all accused for the charges under Section 506 IPC and
Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. There is no cross 63 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
appeal by the State aggrieved by acquittal of A1 to A4 on these findings by learned Magistrate. This Court is going with the finding of learned Magistrate only, while giving acquittal for the charges under Section 506 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act. Though certain witnesses deposed A2 and his brother threatened them with dire consequences that they will see their end and other witnesses deposed A3 and A4 also threatened them, the criminal intention required under Section 506 IPC and
Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act is not treated as established. Accordingly, the finding of learned Magistrate on these charges under Section 506 IPC and Section 7(1) of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act are concurred with.
Basing on the discussion above, after re-appreciating entire 31) oral and documentary evidence on record, the guilt of A2 to A4 for the offence under Section 420 IPC is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As A4 died pending appeal this appeal against him is dismissed as abated. This Court did not find any infirmities or irregularities in the Judgment passed by learned Magistrate and it is not liable to be set aside. Accordingly point nos., 1 and 2 are answered.
64 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
32) In the result, the appeal filed by A2 in Crl. Appeal No.
636/2018 is dismissed with costs.
The appeal filed by A3 and A4 in Crl. Appeal No. 652/2018 is also dismissed with costs.
Pending appeal A4 died and hence the appeal filed by
A4 is dismissed as abated. A2 and A3 are found guilty.
The case against A1 was already dismissed as abated
before trial Court itself.
A2 and A3 are found guilty for the offence under
Section 420 IPC and the conviction against them imposed by learned trial Judge is hereby confirmed.
Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of March, 2026.
III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
65 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:
Learned trial Court Judge imposed punishment of simple 33) imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to pay fine amount they were sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. This Court is considering the age of A2 and A3 as on today and reducing the sentence as SI for a period of TWO YEARS and fine of Rs.10,000/- (already paid)
before trial Court.
34)The remand period of A2 and A3 as noted is from 05-03- 2001 to 07-03-2001 (3) days for A2 and 05-03-2001 to 12-03-2001 and 12-01-2015 to 15-03-2016 (435) days for A3 has to be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., this Court hereby informs A2 and A3 about their right of revision. This Court do not see any reasons to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. The bail bonds of accused and sureties shall be in force until expiry of time seeking revision. A2 and A3 may get free legal aid if they intend to get.
Accused remained absent today though this court is giving a 35) chance for hearing on quantum of sentence. This appellate Court is 66 of 66
III ADJ Crl.Apl.No. 636/2018 & 652/2018
not insisting for their presence under Section 387 proviso of
Cr.P.C.,
Office is directed to transmit this record to concerned 36) learned JFCM court at LB Nagar, now dealing with erstwhile XI
Metropolitan Magistrate, at Cyberabad, R.R. District directing learned Magistrate to issue conviction warrant as per Judgment of this appellate court and see that it is executed. Learned advocate of A2 may take copy of Judgment, it is made ready. The copy of
Judgment was given to A3 and he was sent to serve remaining period of conviction warrant.
Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of March, 2026.
III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-NIL-
III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT