Page No.1 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XV JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
PRESENT: Sri Yaswanth Singh, XV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.
Tuesday, this the 21st day of April, 2026.
C.C. No. 623 of 2016
Between :
The State of Telangana, represented through Sub-Inspector of police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. ... Prosecution
Represented by: Mrs. Vijaya, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
// And //
Ande Rambabu, S/o. Satyam, aged about 32 years, occupation is President of National Handicaps, resident of H. No. 93/7, Durga Nagar, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, native of Ponugodu Village, Garidepally Mandal, Nalgonda District.
...Accused .
Represented by: Mr. M. Murali, learned counsel for Accused.
This case is heard in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. M. Murali, learned counsel for the accused; and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record; this Court delivers the following.
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Sub-Inspector of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 231 of 2016 against the accused under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as “IPC”.
2.The factual matrix of the case is that on the 5th day of June, 2016, at 13.00 hours, Sri Edulakanti Gopala Krishna, defacto complainant, lodged a complaint with police stating that one Ande Rambabu, son of
Satam, Occupation: President of National Handicaps, resident of H.No. 9-9-
XV JMFC
Page No.2 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 133, Reddy Colony, Champapet, Hyderabad, who contested for the post of
MLA, herein accused, informed the complainant that backlog posts in the
BC Welfare office and Collector office are vacant, and for the post of
Attender, Rs. 1 lakh, and for the post of Jr. Assistant, Rs. 1,50,000/- is required for getting those jobs. Believing the words of said Ande Ram Babu, he gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to him and told him that he would pay Rs. 50,000/- after securing a job for him. On several occasions, he asked the said Ande
Ram Babu for his appointment, for which he dragged the matter on several times. Even after the lapse of one year, the complainant could not get any job. On that, he went to the house of said Ande Babu and asked him about his job, due to which he abused the complainant in filthy language.
Moreover, for the past one month, he switched off his mobile phone. Apart from him, one Jaironi Raju, resident of Ibrahimpatnam, Nakka Jagan, resident of Raipol, Beesupalli Yellaiah, resident of Uppariguda, Beesupalli
Sridhar, resident of Uppariguda, Paka Srisailam, resident of Tallagudam,
Tirundas Sainath, resident of Ibrahimpatnam, Saigudam Jagan, resident of
MP Patel Guda, Guvvala Yadaiah, resident of Raipol, Hanmanth Prabhakar, resident of Ibrahimpatnam, Baindla Ganesh, resident of Raipole,
Sumalatha, resident of Secundrabad, Jetti Satyanarayana, resident of
Raipole, also paid amounts to Ande Ram Babu for securing jobs for them.
But he did not provide any jobs to them, nor returned their amounts, and cheated them. As such, the complainant requested to take necessary action against the said Ande Ram Babu. Based on complaint, the police registered the case, investigated and the above accused was charge-sheeted.
XV JMFC
Page No.3 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 3The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of the IPC against the Accused and numbered as Calendar Case
Number 623 of 2016.
4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C., and he was examined under
Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined LW1 to LW5, LW7,
LW9, LW6, LW8 and LW12, as PW1 to PW10, respectively, and marked the documents Exhibits P1 to P13. Moreover, the Ld. APP had given up the evidence of LW10 and LW11. The evidence of the prosecution is as follows:
5.1. Sri E. Gopala Krishna/LW1 is the complainant. He was examined as PW1. It is his evidence that he knows LWs 2 to 9 and the accused. One Ande Rambabu, who is the accused, got acquainted with him and introduced himself as working as president of the National Handicaps
Peoples Organisation. He also contested for MLA and impressed him to follow him. Subsequently, he lured him by saying he would provide government jobs with his influence under the backlog quota in the office of
B.C Welfare, as well as Collector for Rs. 1 Lakh for the attender post and
Rs. 1.5 lakhs for the Jr. Assistant post. Believing his words, he intended to
XV JMFC
Page No.4 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 give some amounts and accordingly gave Rs. 1,50,000/- to him for the post of attender for his brother and Jr. Assistant for his niece. He asked him to pay the remaining amount after getting the jobs and one month’s salary.
Out of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, he paid Rs. 1 lakh as cash, and Rs.
50,000/- in his account by way of two deposits of Rs. 25,000/- each. Later, he did not stick to his promise to provide those jobs and postponed the same on one or another reason for more than nine (9) months. Then he started going to his home, where he observed that LWs 2 to 9 also paid the amounts to him like him. When he asked for jobs, he threatened him with dire consequences. Then he lodged the complaint. Ex. P1 is the complaint.
The police examined him and recorded his statement. He also handed over the C.D to the police, having a conversation with the accused. He further marked Ex.P2 to P7. Ex. P2 is a bank receipt of Rs. 25,000/-, dated 06.07.2015. Ex. P3 is also a bank receipt of Rs. 25,000/-, dated 06.07.2015. Ex. P4 is a blank cheque vide No. 285062. Ex. P5 is a blank cheque vide No. 285063. Ex. P6 is a blank signed non-judicial stamp of Rs.
100/- vide Sl. No. 6105, dated 25.06.2015, and Ex. P7 is a CD.
It is gathered from his cross examination that he is jobless. Before
Covid, he was a private employee. His village is Raipol, and the Mandal is
Ibrahimpatnam. The complainant is from the village Champapet. He does not know the Mandal. He came into acquaintance with the accused as he contested the MLA election, and at that time, he was the youth president of his village. They did not work in the same organization. He gave the
XV JMFC
Page No.5 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 complaint by himself. The complaint was written by a policeman at the police station. The police examined him and recorded his statement. His statement was written by a writer. His statement was recorded in the afternoon hours. He could not tell the exact time. He gave the complaint in the year 2016. He does not remember the exact date. The accused is not from his village. After writing the complaint, the police read it over to him.
He denied that the accused came to his house and said that there was a vacancy in the BC welfare department. He clarified that accused came to his shop and told him that there was a vacancy in the BC welfare department. He had not mentioned in his complaint that the accused came to his shop. Everything is recorded in a CD. He admitted that the accused is not a government employee, MLA, or MP. He clarified that accused contested for MLA. He had not mentioned in the complaint, date, time, and place of giving the amount to the accused. He clarified that he had mentioned that he gave the amount to the complainant. He admitted that the accused had not given in writing on stamp paper that he received Rs.
1,00,000/- from him. He clarified that the accused gave a blank non-judicial stamp paper with his signature stating that he may write on it, but he missed it. He admitted that he had not mentioned in the complaint and statement that he paid Rs. 25,000/- through bank deposit. He clarified that after giving the complaint, he provided his evidence of bank slip, bond paper, CD, and cheques to the police.
XV JMFC
Page No.6 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016
He had not mentioned in his complaint and the statement that he provided bank slips, bond papers, CD, and cheques to the police. He admitted that the accused is handicapped. He denied that since the accused is a handicapped person and physically weak, he cannot threaten him. He denied that the accused and he are members of the Mahajana Socialist party. He denied that due to being members of the same party, they had political rivalry with each other. He denied that he had been giving false evidence before this court. He had not stated to the police as well as in his complaint that for the attender job of his daughter-in-law, he gave the amount. He had not mentioned in his complaint and statement that the accused did not stick to providing those jobs and postponed the same for one or other reasons for more than nine months. He clarified that he had not mentioned the nine months, but he stated that the accused had postponed the matter. He denied that he was not given an MLA ticket while the accused got an MLA ticket, so due to political rivalry, he filed a false case.
When he was a private employee, he was getting Rs. 50,000/- per month. He had not mentioned in his complaint that he was getting Rs.
50,000/- per month. He denied that he had deposed falsely about his salary of Rs. 50,000/-. He denied that he was not having the capacity to pay Rs.
1,00,000/-. He paid those Rs. 1,00,000/- from his salary. He had not mentioned in his complaint and statement that he paid Rs. 1,00,000/- from the source of his salary. He admitted that he had not mentioned in his
XV JMFC
Page No.7 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 complaint and statement that how he paid those amounts to the accused.
He denied that previously they were good friends and some transactions took place between them and that he paid the amount for the attender job and junior assistant job is false. He denied that he did not provide bond paper, cheques, bank slips, and CD to the police during the investigation, and the same are now presented before this court after creating the same.
He denied that he had deposed falsely.
5.2. Sri N. Jagan/LW2 is the witness. He was examined as PW2.
It is his evidence that he knows PW1, LW3 to LW9, and the accused. In the year 2016, Prabhakar informed him that an attender post was available at the collector office on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh rupees only) and a Junior Assistant post on payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty thousand rupees only). He further stated that an advance amount of Rs.
50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees only) had to be paid, and after joining, the remaining amount had to be paid. Thereafter, Prabhakar introduced him to
Rambabu/the accused. Meanwhile, Prabhakar met with an accident, so he paid Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees only) to Rambabu/the accused, and the accused gave him an empty cheque. After payment, the accused asked him to wait for six months. After six months, when he made calls to him, he did not answer. Thereafter, he came to know that the accused cheated other persons, namely Gopala Krishna/PW1, Srishylam/LW2,
Jagan/LW4, Yadhaiah/LW5, Sumalatha/LW8, and Ganesh/LW7, and they all
XV JMFC
Page No.8 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 together went to the police station and gave a complaint. The police examined him and recorded his statement. Ex. P8 is the cheque given to him by the accused.
It is gathered from his cross examination that now he is doing a private job. He is earning four thousand rupees per month. His statement was recorded at the police station. He does not remember the date of recording his statement. The statement was recorded by a sub-inspector or police. He read the statement. He admitted that he had not stated to the police that he had given Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees) to the accused. He had not stated the date and time of payment of the above Rs.
50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees) to the accused in his statement to the police. He had not stated to the police in whose presence he gave the amount to the accused. He had not filed any call record pertaining to making calls to the accused. No documents were prepared while giving this amount to the accused, but the accused gave him a cheque. At the time of recording his statement by the police, he did not give the above cheque to the police.
He had not stated to the police that on payment of an advance of Rs.
50,000/-, the job would be given and thereafter the remaining amount had to be paid after joining. After six months of payment, when the accused was not lifting his phone, he did not personally give any complaint to the police. He clarified that they gave a complaint in a group. He had not stated in the police statement that after payment of Rs. 50,000/-, the accused gave him a cheque. His statement was recorded about ten years back. The
XV JMFC
Page No.9 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 cheque was filed before this court about two months back. He admitted that he had not stated in his statement that whether he gave Rs. 50,000/- in cash or through a cheque. He clarified that he had given it in cash. He had not issued any legal notice to the accused. He had not given any complaint to the legal service authority. He had not presented the cheque
before the bank. PW1 is of his village. He gave Rs. 50,000/- to the accused
at his house. He had not stated to the police that he gave the above amount at the accused’s house.
He denied that PW1 is his friend. He had not taken any photos or videos while giving the amount. Today he reached court at 10:00 AM. He did not meet the police today. The police did not read over the statement to him. He had not stated to the police for which post he gave the amount to the accused, but he clarified that he gave the amount for the attender post. He could not say the chequenumber given by the accused to him. No name or date was mentioned on the cheque. He had not stated to the police from where he arranged Rs. 50,000/- which was given to the accused. He denied that he did not give any amount to the accused. He had not stated to the police about Prabhakar and his role. He denied that because of a dispute between PW1 and the accused and in order to help PW1, he had been deposing falsely. He denied that the accused never gave any cheque to him. He denied that the accused never said about giving a job on payment, and he never paid Rs. 50,000/- to the accused and no cheque was issued by the accused. He denied that the police did not record his
XV JMFC
Page No.10 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 statement. He denied that he did not know other witnesses of this case. He denied that the accused is innocent and he had deposed falsely.
5.3. Sri. P. Srishylam/LW3 is the other witness. He was examined as PW3. It is his evidence that he knows PW1, PW2, LW4 to LW9, and the accused. In the year 2015, he gave Rs. 50,000/- to Andhe Rambabu/the accused for an attender post, but he did not get the job. After payment, he made two or three calls to the accused, upon which the accused assured him that the job would come to him, but he did not get any job. Thereafter,
Gopala Krishna/PW1 lodged a complaint against the accused. The police examined him and recorded his statement.
It is gathered from his cross examination that he is doing agriculture.
His village is Thalapallyguda, and it is near Raipole village. Both villages are about four kilometers away from each other. He denied that the distance between both villages is two kilometers. He knows Gopala Krishna/PW1 and
Lakka Jagan/PW2. His statement was recorded in the month of June 2016.
Today, he reached the court at about 10:00 AM. The police did not show him his statement today. He does not remember the time at which his statement was recorded. He does not remember on which date he gave an amount to the accused. No one was present when he gave an amount to the accused. He did not state to the police about which job he gave an amount to the accused. No document was prepared at the time of giving the amount. He clarified that the accused gave him a cheque. He did not
XV JMFC
Page No.11 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 state to the police that the accused gave him a cheque. He could not say about the phone number of the accused, and the cheque number either. He gave money to the accused in cash. He did not state to the police how he arranged Rs. 50,000/- for giving to the accused. He had not issued any legal notice to the accused. He had not presented the cheque before the bank.
At that time also, he was doing agriculture. He never visited the collector office for an inquiry about the job. He filed the cheque before this court one year back. He denied that he did not file any cheque before this court. He denied that he never gave any amount to the accused. He denied that he had not stated to the police that in 2015, he gave an amount to the accused.
He denied that due to financial disputes between PW1, PW2, and the accused, and he being the friend of PW1 and PW2, he had deposed falsely.
5.4. Sri. S. Jagan/LW4 is the other witness. He was examined as
PW4. It is his evidence that he knows PW1 to PW3 and LW5 to LW9, and the accused. In the year 2015, Rambabu/accused informed him about the job of an attender in the collector’s office. He demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- for the job. He expressed his incapacity to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-, and thereafter, the accused said that in advance, he had to pay Rs. 40,000/- and the remaining amount had to be paid after getting the job. On his assurance, he paid Rs. 40,000/-. After one or two months of payment, he made a call to him, but he did not lift. Thereupon, he went to his house but found that he had vacated the house. He also came to know that apart from him,
XV JMFC
Page No.12 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016
Jagan/PW2, Sathyanarayana/LW9, and Yadhaiah/LW5 also paid an amount to the accused. He also came to know that Gopal Krishna lodged a complaint. The police examined him and recorded his statement. The accused gave him a cheque at the time of payment by him. Ex. P9 is the cheque given by the accused to him.
It is gathered from his cross examination that he is doing tailor work.
He has not filed any proof showing that he paid Rs. 40,000/- to the accused.
The accused did not issue any receipt, but gave him a cheque. He did not present Ex. P9/cheque before the bank. He has not given any complaint to the police about the cheating of the accused. He stated to the police that the accused gave him a cheque. He denied that he did not state such a thing before the police. He does not know the facts written by the police in his statement. After arriving at court, he read his statement. He did not witness that Jagan/PW2, Sathyanarayana/LW9, Yadhaiah/LW5 paid the amount to the accused. He denied that he had not stated to the police that he gave the amount to the accused for an attender job. He does not remember the date on which his statement was recorded by the police. He knows PW1 to PW3. He denied that he never paid the amount of Rs.
40,000/- to the accused. He did not give the cheque/Ex. P9 to the police at the time of recording his statement. He clarified that he showed the cheque to the police. About two months before, through APP, he filed a cheque
before the court. He could not say the cheque number. The cheque was an
empty cheque, but it contains the accused’s signature. He has not given a
XV JMFC
Page No.13 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 complaint to the police when he found that the accused did not lift his phone and vacate his house. He stated to the police how he arranged the amount of Rs. 40,000/- for payment to the accused. He denied that he had not stated such a fact before the police and now he had been deposing falsely.
He denied that PW1 to PW3 are his friends and they have a financial dispute with the accused and in order to help them he deposed falsely. He went alone to give the amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the accused. He denied that no transaction took place between him and other witnesses and he never took
Rs. 40,000/- from him and he had deposed falsely. He denied that he never made any call to the accused and never visited his house, and the accused never vacated his house. He denied that the police did not record his statement. He denied that he deposed falsely.
5.5. Sri. G. Yadhaiah/LW5 is the witness. He was examined as
PW5. It is his evidence that he knows PW1 to PW4, LW6 to LW9, and the accused. In the year 2015, Andhe Rambabu/the accused conducted some programs for the welfare of handicapped persons. The accused told him that there was an attender post for handicapped individuals in the collector’s office and asked him for Rs. 1,00,000/- for that post. He gave Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand rupees only) in cash to the accused, and the accused gave him an empty bond paper as security. After about one or two months, he called the accused, but his phone was switched off. The accused kept the matter dragging on till 2016. Thereafter, the present case was filed against
XV JMFC
Page No.14 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 the accused by Gopal Krishna/PW1. At the time of giving the complaint, he,
Jagan, another Jagan, Srishylam, Ganesh, Sumalatha, Sathyanarayan, and
Prabhakar went to the police station. The police examined him and recorded his statement. Ex.P10 is an empty bond paper.
It is gathered from his cross examination that he is from Raipole village. PW1 and PW2 are also from Raipole village. In general, they used to meet each other as villagers. His statement was recorded on 05.06.2016 during the morning hours. He does not remember whether he stated to the police about the date and time of giving Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand rupees only) to the accused. He clarified that the matter is about ten years old so he does not remember correctly, but the date is mentioned on bond paper. He denied that he never stated the date and time to the police. He stated to the police about the post for which he gave the amount. He stated to the police that he gave the amount for the attender post. He stated to the police about the attender post, but the police did not record the same.
He denied that he never stated about the post to the police. The police did not read over the statement to him. He does not know the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C statement. He denied that he did not state to the police that after one or two months he made calls to the accused, but his phone was switched off, and he had been deposing falsely.
He does not remember the date of payment to the accused. He clarified that the matter is about ten years old and he does not remember correctly, but the date is mentioned on bond paper. He had personally not
XV JMFC
Page No.15 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 given a complaint to the police. He admitted that an empty bond paper Ex.
P10 is in his name. He admitted that the bond paper is of Rs. 10/-. The accused did not give any receipt. He did not witness the payment made by
Jagan, another Jagan, Srishylam, Ganesh, Sumalatha, Sathyanarayan, and
Prabhakar. Saiguda Jagan and Jarkoni Raju were present when he gave Rs.
40,000/- to the accused. He stated this fact to the police also, but the police did not record it. He denied that he never stated these facts to the police and deposing falsely. He had not filed any photo, video, or any evidence proving that he made payment in the presence of the above persons. He had not stated to the police that he gave in cash to the accused. He clarified that he made the payment in cash. He denied that he deposed falsely. He had not filed any suit for recovery. He denied that he never made any payment and the accused never gave any bond paper to him, and being the friends of PW1 and PW2, he had been deposing falsely. He took a loan for the payment of Rs. 40,000/- to the accused. He denied that he had not stated the same to the police. He did not give the bond paper to the police at the time of recording his statement. Bond papers were filed about two months before. The other witnesses in this case are handicapped, and they are of the same group. He denied that due to a dispute between PW1 and the accused, and he being the friend of PW1, deposing falsely.
5.6. Sri B. Ganesh/LW7 is the other witness. He was examined as
PW6. It is his evidence that he knows PW1 to PW5 and LW6. He knows the
XV JMFC
Page No.16 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 accused also. In the year 2016, the accused was working as president of the National Handicaps. Accused said to him and other persons that he would provide a government job in the collectorate office. For providing the job, accused asked for one lakh rupees for the attender post, and for the
Junior Assistant post, he asked for one lakh fifty thousand rupees.
Accordingly, he gave fifty thousand rupees to the accused for the attender post at his residence. As security, the accused gave him an empty cheque.
He misplaced that cheque somewhere. The accused collected money from others in the name of a job. The accused had not provided any job to them, moreover, did not return the money also. They all, the victims, together informed the same to Gopalakrishna/PW1, who lodged a complaint with the police. The police examined him and recorded his statement.
It is gathered from his cross examination that he is a government employee in the Electricity Department. He admitted that
Gopalakrishna/PW1 is from his village. The police recorded his statement at the police station. His statement was recorded in the month of June 2016.
He knows the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C statement. He is a B.Com graduate.
He does not know whether he read his statement or not. He admitted that he did not state to the police that he gave Rs. 50,000/- to the accused for a job. He did not state to the police about the date of giving the amount.
He admitted that he did not state to the police about the place of giving the amount. He admitted that he did not state to the police about the witnesses in whose presence he gave the amount. He admitted that he did not state
XV JMFC
Page No.17 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 to the police that the accused gave him a cheque as security. The accused did not give any receipt of Rs. 50,000/-. He clarified that he gave an empty cheque. No document or agreement was written by the accused regarding providing a job for Rs. 50,000/-. He admitted that other victims, the accused, and himself are all handicapped. He denied that the accused never took Rs. 50,000/- for providing a job from him, and he deposed falsely. He denied that as PW1 is from his village, he had been deposing falsely to help him. He denied that there were disputes between PW1 and the accused and therefore, PW1 filed a false case and he had been supporting PW1. He denied that the accused never took any amount and never issued any empty cheque, therefore, he could not produce the same and he had deposed falsely.
5.7. Sri J. Sathyanarayana/LW9 is the other witness. He was examined as PW7. It is his evidence that he knows PW1 to PW6, LW6, and
LW8. He knows the accused also. In the year 2016, the accused stated to him that he was working as the President of the National Handicaps and that he was also contesting MLA elections. He further stated to him that he could provide a government job in the collectorate office. For providing the job, he asked for Rs. 1,00,000/- for the attender post. For which he paid
Rs. 50,000/- in advance at his rented house at Bairamalguda. At that time,
Abbasavulu, his co-villager, was also present. Thereafter, he did not get any job. Thereafter, he met him several times regarding jobs, but each time he
XV JMFC
Page No.18 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 postponed the matter on one pretext or another. The accused told them to go to the collectorate office and inquire there by referring to his name.
Accordingly, he went to the collectorate office and found that no job was there. Thereafter, the accused stopped lifting his call. Subsequently, he came to know that the accused cheated other persons also in the same manner. They all decided to give a complaint, and accordingly, PW1 lodged a complaint with the police. The police examined him and recorded his statement. At the time of giving money to the accused, the accused gave him a cheque. Ex. P11 is the cheque.
It is gathered from his cross examination that Gopalakrishna/PW1 is from his village. The police recorded his statement at the police station. His statement was recorded on 05.06.2016. He knows the contents of his 161
Cr.P.C statement. He is a literate and studied up to 10th class. He read his statement. He admitted that he did not state to the police that he gave Rs.
50,000/- to the accused for a job. He did not state to the police about the date of giving the amount. He admitted that he did not state to the police about the place of giving the amount. He admitted that he did not state to the police about the witnesses, namely Abbasavulu, in whose presence he gave the amount. He stated to the police that the accused gave him a cheque as security. He denied that he had not stated the same to the police.
The accused did not give any receipt of Rs. 50,000/-. He clarified that accused gave an empty cheque. No document or agreement was written by the accused regarding providing a job for Rs. 50,000/-. He admitted that
XV JMFC
Page No.19 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 other victims, the accused, and himself are all handicapped. He denied that the accused had not taken Rs. 50,000/- from him for providing a job and that he had deposed falsely. He denied that, as PW1 is from his village, he had been deposing falsely to help him. He denied that there were disputes between PW1 and the accused and that, therefore, PW1 had filed a false case, and he had deposed falsely in support of PW1. He denied that the police had not recorded his statement. He denied that the accused had not taken any amount or issued any blank cheque, and that he had not gone to the Collectorate office, and that he had deposed falsely.
5.8. Sri H. Prabhakar/LW6 is the other witness. He was examined as PW8. It is his evidence that he does not know PW1 to PW7. He does not know the accused either. He is also unaware of the facts of the case. The police did not examine him or record his statement.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared him a hostile witness and cross-examined him. During the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had stated before the police as mentioned in Ex. P12, his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C, and that he deposed falsely to help the accused. He denied that the accused took Rs. 1 lakh from him on the name of providing a job, and as the accused repaid his money, he had deposed falsely.
5.9. Smt. P. Sumalatha/LW8 is the other witness. She was examined as PW9. It is her evidence that she knows PW2 and PW3, and the
XV JMFC
Page No.20 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 accused. In the year 2015 or 2016, the accused promised her to provide a government job for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, she, along with her husband, went to the accused’s house and paid Rs. 50,000/-.
Thereafter, the accused did not provide any job nor returned her money.
Every time, on one or another pretext, he was postponing the matter. As there was no positive response from the accused, she, along with other victims, went to the police station and lodged the complaint. The police examined her and recorded her statement.
It is gathered from her cross examination that she was literate and studied up to 10th class. She knows reading and writing. She gave a complaint to the police. The police examined her and recorded her statement. She read her statement. She admitted that she had not stated to the police about the date of giving the money to the accused. She admitted that she did not state to the police about the nature of the job or designation of the job for which she gave Rs. 50,000/-. She admitted that she did not state to the police that she, along with her husband, went to the accused’s house and gave money. She had not taken any receipt or bond paper from the accused at the time of giving money to the accused.
She had not taken any photo or video at the time of giving money. She denied that she had deposed falsely and never gave any complaint to the police. She could not state the FIR number. She does not remember the date of giving the complaint. She denied that the accused never asked for any money, and never took Rs. 50,000/- from her for providing a job, and
XV JMFC
Page No.21 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 she had deposed falsely to support PW1.
5.10. Sri G. Nagaraju/LW12 is the Investigating officer. He was examined as PW10. It is his evidence that on 30.07.2016, he received the case file from LW11, who investigated the case. LW10 registered the FIR vide Cr. No. 231/2016, U/s. 420 of IPC and entrusted the investigation to
LW11. During the course of the investigation, LW11 recorded the statement of LW1 to LW9. As per the case file, a prima facie case was established against the accused. On 19.09.2016, he arrested the accused and produced him before the Hon’ble Court. After completing the investigation, he filed a charge sheet. Ex. P13 is the FIR.
It is gathered from his cross examination that as the prima facie case was established against the accused, he arrested the accused. He admitted that column No. 2 of the charge sheet is blank. He admitted that column
No. 10, regarding the seized property and documents, is mentioned as nil.
He admitted that as per the complaint/Ex.P1, the complainant gave Rs.
1,50,000/- to the accused, but as per the charge sheet brief facts, he mentioned that the complainant gave Rs. 1,00,000/-. Neither the complainant nor the witnesses handed over any cheque, bank receipt, or bond paper to him. He did not submit any paper, document, cheque, or bank receipt along with the charge sheet. He admitted that column No. 2 of
FIR/Ex.P13 is blank. He clarified that the offence occurred prior to 05.06.2016. He admitted that column No. 5(a) of the FIR is blank. He
XV JMFC
Page No.22 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 admitted that “the delay from the complainant” is mentioned in column No.
8 of the FIR. He admitted that column No. 14, regarding the signature or thumb impression of the complainant, is blank. He admitted that the particular date, time, and place pertaining to the giving of the amount to the accused are not mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P1. In the complaint as well as in the 161 statements of the witnesses, nothing is mentioned about the presence of the witness at the time the amount was given. Neither in the complaint nor in the 161 statement did the complainant state about the giving of bond paper or cheque by the accused. After one year of giving the money and not getting the job, the complainant gave the complaint. The other witnesses also did not state in their 161 statements that the accused gave them a cheque, bond paper, or any receipt. He does not know whether the complainant and all the witnesses are handicapped. He admitted that
LW2, LW5, LW7, and LW9 are residents of Raipole village, which is the complainant’s village. Neither in the complaint nor in the 161 statement did the complainant state about giving money for the post of attender to his brother or junior assistant to his niece. Neither in the complaint nor in the 161 statement did the complainant state that out of Rs. 1,50,000, he paid
Rs. 1,00,000 as cash and Rs. 50,000 into the accused’s account by way of two deposits of Rs. 25,000 each. The complainant did not state that the matter was postponed for more than 9 months, but he stated it was for about one year. The complainant did not hand over any CD to the police regarding his conversation with the accused. LW11 recorded the statement
XV JMFC
Page No.23 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 of LW1. LW11’s designation is Sub-Inspector of Police. All the witnesses are from different villages. Except LW8, all other witnesses are from
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal.
PW2 did not state in his 161 statement that in the year 2016,
Prabhakar informed him that an attender post was available in the collector office. PW2 did not state that he gave Rs. 50,000 to the accused, however, he did not state the figure of money but stated that he gave money to the accused. PW2 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused gave an empty cheque. PW2 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused asked him to wait for six months. However, he did not state the six-month period but stated that the accused asked him to wait for some time. PW2 did not state in the 161 statement where he paid the advance amount to the accused or whether the payment was in cash or through cheque.
PW3 did not state in the 161 statement the post for which he gave the amount. PW3 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused gave him a cheque. PW3 did not state in the 161 statement the date, time, or place when he gave the amount to the accused.
PW4 did not state in the 161 statement that in the year 2015 the accused informed him about a job as an attender in the collector office.
However, he did not state the year but stated that the accused informed him about the job. PW4 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused demanded Rs. 1,00,000 for the job. PW4 did not state in the 161 statement that he called the accused, who did not answer, and that he then went to
XV JMFC
Page No.24 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 his house and found that the accused had vacated it. PW4 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused gave him a cheque. PW4 did not show any cheque to the police. PW4 did not state in the 161 statement that he went alone to give Rs. 40,000 to the accused, but he stated that he gave
Rs. 40,000 to the accused. PW4 did not state in the 161 statement the date, time, or place of giving the amount to the accused.
PW5 did not state in the 161 statement that in 2015 the accused conducted some programme for the welfare of handicapped persons. PW5 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused told him there was an attender post for handicapped persons in the collector office and asked him for Rs. 1,00,000 for that post. PW5, however, did not state the Rs. 1,00,000 figure but stated the other facts. PW5 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused gave him an empty bond paper as security. PW5 did not state in the 161 statement that after one or two months he called the accused but the phone was switched off. PW5’s statement was recorded on 06.06.2016.
PW6 did not state in the 161 statement the figure of money asked by the accused for providing the job. PW6 did not state in the 161 statement that he gave Rs. 50,000 at the accused’s residence. PW6, however, stated he gave the money but did not state the figure or the fact that it was given at the residence. PW6 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused gave a cheque. PW6 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused
XV JMFC
Page No.25 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 asked for Rs. 1,00,000 for the attender post and Rs. 1,50,000 for the junior assistant post.
PW7 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused asked for
Rs. 1,00,000 for the attender post. PW7 did not state in the 161 statement that he paid Rs. 50,000 in advance at the accused’s rented house at
Bhairamalguda. The place was, however, not stated but he did state he gave Rs. 50,000. PW7 did not state in the 161 statement that his co-villager
Abbasaulu was also present at that time. PW7 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused told them to go to the collector office and enquire there by referring to his name, and that upon doing so, he found no job was available. PW7 did not state in the 161 statement that the accused gave him a cheque. PW7’s statement was recorded on 07.06.2016.
PW9 did not state in the 161 statement the year in which he was promised a government job. PW9 did not state in the 161 statement that she, along with her husband, went to the accused and paid the amount. The presence of her husband was not stated, but she did state that she gave
Rs. 50,000. PW9 did not give any complaint.
He denied that because of monetary and political disputes between the accused and the complainant, a false complaint was lodged and other witnesses gave false testimony in support of PW1. He denied that he did not conduct a proper investigation. He denied that the accused is innocent and did not take any amount for the job purpose. He denied that he deposed falsely.
XV JMFC
Page No.26 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016
6.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the prosecution evidence as false and claimed to be innocent. Moreover, he reported no defence evidence.
Arguments:
7.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution's evidence is consistent and corroborative. The defence has failed to elicit any material in their favour, and there is nothing on record to cast doubt on the prosecution's evidence. According to the prosecution, the evidence presented proves the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused should be convicted and punished accordingly.
On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently contended that the entire prosecution case is riddled with inconsistencies and lacks any credible corroboration. It is submitted that there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly with regard to the essential aspects of the alleged transactions.
The learned counsel further argued that the alleged cheques, bond papers, and CD have been falsely created and introduced for the first time at the stage of trial, without any foundation in the complaint or the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The defence further submits that these documents have not been proved in accordance with law, inasmuch as there is no evidence to connect them with the accused, no scientific examination
XV JMFC
Page No.27 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 has been conducted, and no independent corroboration is forthcoming. It is, therefore, contended that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. On these grounds, the learned defence counsel prayed that the accused be acquitted in the interest of justice.
7.1.This court has heard both sides at great length and also perused the material available on record.
8.Basing on the contentions of both parties, now points for consideration before this Court are:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved this case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section
420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?
2. What order?
This court answers the above points as follows:
1. Point No.1:In the Negative.
2. Point No.2:In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offense punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties are extended for six (6) months as per the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Reasons: -
Point No.1:
9.The prosecution case is that the accused induced the de facto complainant and several others by representing that he had influence to secure government jobs in the offices of the B.C. Welfare Department and the Collectorate. It is alleged that, acting upon such representation, the
XV JMFC
Page No.28 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 complainant and others paid various amounts to the accused, but no jobs were provided and the amounts were not returned, thereby constituting the offence of cheating. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exs. P1 to P13.
10. The entire edifice of the prosecution case rests upon the oral testimony of PW1 to PW9, who claim to be victims of the alleged acts of cheating. However, upon a careful and meticulous scrutiny of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution case is vitiated by serious infirmities which strike at its very root.
11. At the outset, it must be noted that PW1, the complainant, in his chief-examination, introduced several material facts, including the alleged payment of amounts through bank deposits, issuance of cheques by the accused, execution of bond papers, and recording of conversations in the form of a CD. These facts, if true, would constitute vital corroborative material in support of the prosecution case. However, what is of decisive significance is that none of these facts find place either in the complaint or in the statement of PW1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
12. This omission is not trivial or peripheral. It goes to the very core of the prosecution case. The law is well settled that omissions of material particulars in statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., when such particulars are later introduced during trial, amount to contradictions
XV JMFC
Page No.29 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 affecting the credibility of the witness. In the present case, PW1 candidly admitted in his cross-examination that he did not state before the police about the alleged bank deposits, cheques, bond papers, or CD. The
Investigating Officer (PW10) has also categorically deposed that no such facts were stated by PW1 during investigation and that no such documents were handed over to him.
12.1. Furthermore, the testimony of PW1, when subjected to careful scrutiny, reveals material inconsistencies which strike at the credibility of his version. Before this Court, PW1 has deposed that the amounts were paid to the accused for securing employment for his niece and brother. However, a perusal of the complaint/Ex.P1 shows that no such specific assertion finds place therein. The omission to mention the very purpose for which the money was allegedly paid, namely the intended beneficiaries, is not a minor discrepancy but a material omission affecting the substratum of the prosecution case. Further, PW1 has also deposed in chief-examination that part of the amount was paid through bank deposits on two occasions.
However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not stated
before the police about making such payments through bank deposits,
thereby giving rise to a clear contradiction between his earlier statement and his deposition before the Court. These improvements render his testimony doubtful and unsafe to rely upon without independent corroboration.
XV JMFC
Page No.30 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016
13. The evidence of PW2 to PW7 suffers from the same vice. The evidence of the other prosecution witnesses also suffers from similar infirmities in the nature of material improvements and inconsistencies. PW2 (N. Jagan) has, for the first time before this Court, introduced the name of one Prabhakar as the person who informed him about the alleged job opportunity and through whom he came into contact with the accused. This crucial fact does not find place in his statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. Likewise, PW7 (J. Sathyanarayana) have introduced, during their deposition before the Court, the presence of Abbasavulu at the time of alleged payment of money, though no such details were mentioned during statement to police. Similarly, PW5 (G. Yadhaiah) has deposed about the presence of Saiguda Jagan and Jarkoni Raju at the time of payment, which is an improvement over his earlier statement to police. Further, PW9 (P.
Sumalatha) has, for the first time in her evidence before the Court, stated that she went along with her husband to the house of the accused and paid the amount, a fact which she admittedly did not state before the police.
These are not mere minor discrepancies but material additions affecting the manner and circumstances of the alleged transactions. The omission of such significant details in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., coupled with their subsequent introduction during trial without any explanation, renders these improvements as contradictions in the eye of law. Consequently, the testimonies of these witnesses become doubtful and cannot be safely relied upon in the absence of independent corroboration.
XV JMFC
Page No.31 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016
14. The witnesses, during their examination before the Court, spoke about payment of amounts and, in some instances, about cheques or documents allegedly given by the accused. However, in their cross- examination, they admitted that these facts were not stated before the police in their respective statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The
Investigating Officer has confirmed that none of the witnesses stated during investigation that the accused issued cheques or bond papers or that any documentary material existed or about the presence of witnesses. He further admitted that no such documents were seized or produced before him during the course of investigation.
14.1. What assumes greater significance is the complete absence of any explanation from the prosecution as to why these material facts and documents were not disclosed or produced during investigation. Not a single witness has stated that such documents were in existence at the relevant time and that they attempted to hand them over to the Investigating Officer but that he refused to receive them. In the absence of such an explanation, the belated introduction of these documents at the stage of trial becomes highly doubtful and casts a serious cloud over their authenticity.
15. The law does not countenance a situation where crucial pieces of evidence, which are expected to form part of the earliest version of the prosecution case, surface for the first time during trial without any
XV JMFC
Page No.32 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 foundational basis. Such conduct gives rise to a legitimate inference that the said material is an afterthought, introduced to fill up lacunae in the prosecution case.
16. Even otherwise, the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution does not inspire confidence. There is no evidence to establish that the accounts to which the cheques pertain belong to the accused. No bank official has been examined. No account details have been produced.
Mere production of a cheque, without establishing its origin or linkage to the accused, does not advance the prosecution case.
17. Further, although it is alleged that the cheques bear the signatures of the accused, no steps were taken to obtain an expert opinion to establish the authorship of those signatures. No opinion from a handwriting expert or forensic laboratory has been sought or produced. In the absence of such scientific evidence, the Court is left with unverified documents whose connection to the accused remains wholly unestablished.
The bond papers suffer from similar deficiencies. Furthermore, no evidence has been produced to establish that the alleged two deposits of ₹25,000/- each were made into the account of the accused.The prosecution has thus failed to establish any nexus between the accused and these documents.
18. The position is no different with regard to the CD allegedly containing conversation between the complainant and the accused. The
XV JMFC
Page No.33 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 prosecution has neither produced a certificate as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act nor subjected the CD to any forensic examination. There is no evidence to establish the authenticity of the recording or the identity of the voices. In such circumstances, the CD cannot be relied upon as admissible evidence.
19. The evidence of PW10 assumes considerable significance in the present case, though it must be noted at the outset that he is not the original Investigating Officer. His role is confined to the filing of the charge sheet, while the substantial part of the investigation was admittedly conducted by another officer LW11. This distinction is not without consequence. It necessarily implies that PW10’s knowledge of the investigation is derivative in nature, based solely on the case diary and records prepared by investigating officer, and not on any firsthand investigative acts performed by him. Even with this limitation, PW10 has made categorical admissions which strike at the very foundation of the prosecution case. He has unequivocally deposed that no documents such as cheques, bond papers, bank receipts, or CDs were seized or produced
before the police during the course of investigation. He has further admitted
that none of the witnesses, in their statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., stated about the existence of such documents or their possession.
This assumes great significance, as it establishes that the documentary evidence now relied upon by the prosecution did not form part of the
XV JMFC
Page No.34 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 investigative record at any stage. PW10 has also admitted to several material deficiencies in the FIR and the charge sheet, including blank or incomplete columns.These are not mere procedural irregularities but go to the root of the prosecution version, affecting its credibility and reliability.
20. In such circumstances, this Court is constrained to observe that the investigation appears to have been conducted in a casual and perfunctory manner, lacking the diligence expected in a criminal case of this nature. The failure to secure, preserve, and prove material evidence, coupled with the absence of any scientific verification, creates a significant dent in the prosecution case and renders it unsafe to place reliance upon the evidence so adduced.
21. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. Where the evidence suffers from material contradictions, unexplained omissions, and lack of corroboration, it would be unsafe to base a conviction upon such evidence. Moreover, suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of proof. In the present case, the very foundation of the prosecution case is shaken by the introduction of material facts at the trial stage which were absent during investigation, coupled with the complete failure to prove the authenticity of the documents relied upon.
The cumulative effect of these infirmities creates a serious doubt regarding
XV JMFC
Page No.35 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016 the veracity of the prosecution version. Hence, the prosecution is failed to prove its case.
22.In consonance with foregoing discussion, this court concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish its case and prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 420of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, and he is hereby entitled to acquittal in the interest of justice. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.
Point No.2:-
23. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offense punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under
Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties are extended for six (6) months as per the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist directly on the computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 21 st day of April, 2026.
XV JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
XV JMFC
Page No.36 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW.1Sri E. Gopala Krishna/Complainant, Nil
PW.2Sri N. Jagan/Witness,
PW.3Sri P. Srishylam/Witness,
PW.4Sri S. Jagan/Witness,
Sri G. Yadhaiah/Witness, PW.5
Sri B. Ganesh/Witness, PW.6
Sri J. Sathyanarayana/Witness, PW.7
Sri H. Prabhakar/Witness, PW.8
Smt. P. Sumalatha/Witness, and PW.9
Sri. G. Nagaraju/ Investigating Officer and PW10 filed chargesheet.
EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex.P1Complaint (marked through PW1), Nil
Ex.P2Bank receipt of Rs.25,000/-, dated 06-07- 2015 (marked through PW1),
Ex.P3Bank receipt of Rs.25,000/-, dated 06-07- 2015 (marked through PW1),
Ex.P4Blank cheque vide no. 285062 (marked through PW1),
Ex.P5Blank cheque vide no. 285063 (marked through PW1),
XV JMFC
Page No.37 of 37Judgment in C.C. No.623 of 2016
Blank signed non judiciary stamp of Rs.100/- Ex.P6 vide SI.No. 6105 dated 25-06-2015 (marked through PW1),
Ex.P7 CD (marked through PW1),
Cheque given to PW2 by the accused (marked Ex.P8 through PW2),
Cheque given by the accused to PW4 (marked Ex.P9 through PW4),
Ex.P10 Empty bond paper (marked through PW5),
Ex.P11 Cheque (marked through PW7),
Statement under section 161 Cr.P.C of PW8 Ex.P12 (marked through PW8), and
First Information Report (marked through Ex.P13 PW10).
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
--None--
XV JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
XV JMFC