THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.934 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner along with two others was tried by the learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali in C.C.No.177 of 1998 for the offences punishable under sections 120(B), 420 of IPC. 2 The facts in brief are that A.1 floated a company under the name and style of Orient Trust of India Ltd., Nugambakam, Madras and he was the Chairman and Executive Director of the said company. A.3 is the Divisional Manager of the said company at Visakhapatnam whereas A.2 i.e. the petitioner herein is the Unit Manager of Tenali. The orient Trust of India Limited floated several schemes to attract the public for investing in their company. One of the schemes was titled as ‘social welfare scheme’. Under this scheme a person who deposits Rs.2.50 ps per day for 5 years he would get Rs.5,792-50 ps. Similarly if a person deposits Rs.10/- per day for 5 years, he would get Rs.23,170/-. As the incentives offered by the accused are attractive and by seeing debunked public advertisements in the newspapers P.W.1 who is unemployed approached the petitioner for post of inspector. P.W.1 was interviewed and finally selected by the accused for the post of Inspector and he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards service charges. On 06.07.1995 P.W.1 was given temporary appointment by A.2 vide appointment letter dated 06.06.1995. Since 06.06.1995 P.W.1 mobilized vast funds through 104 members who were got admitted by him. 46 members out of 104 got enrolled by P.W.1 deposited money daily for the period of one year up to tune of Rs.31,400/-. The remaining 68 members did not pay the amount up to one year but they paid few installments. What all the amount collected by P.W.1 from the members were credited regularly in Unit Branch of the Orient Trust of India Limited at Tenali. The petitioner being the unit Branch Manager having received the amount issued receipts to P.W.1 for an amount of Rs.67,766/- out of it Rs.31,400/- deposited by P.W.1. While so, the members of the scheme in need of money requested the petitioner to grant loan to them by keeping their deposits as sureties. In spite of repeated requests made by P.W.1 on behalf of the depositors, the petitioner failed to grant loan and postponed the matter day by day. Immediately P.W.1 reported the matter to A.1 and A.3 over telephone. A.1 promised PW.1 that no harm would be caused to the depositors and the matter will be settled at the unit office of Tenali as they were coming to Tenali on 29.10.1995. Believing the promise of A.1 and A.3, P.W.1 and others patiently watched at the unit office of Tenali on 29.10.1995. On that day at about 10.00 AM P.W.1 along with one A. Srinviasa Rao and K.V. Subbarao and some deposits met A.1 and A.3 at Tenali and in that connection A.1 informed P.W.1 that he would discuss the matter and the amounts would be verified by him and asked P.W.1 to wait for some more time. Believing the representation given by A.1, P.W.1 along with the depositors waited till 2.00 PM with a hope that the matter will be settled by A.1 and A.3. Finally A.1 to A.3 came out from the room and informed P.W.1 that they would settle the matter within a short time and they would come again to Tenali. It is also the case of P.W.1 that A.2 closed the unit office at Tenali and disappeared from the town. Immediately P.W.1 telephoned to A.1 and A.3 and informed them regarding the unexpected closure of the unit office at Tenali. Then A.1 and A.3 stated that A.2 misappropriated the funds deposited by the depositors and so they instructed to close the unit branch at Tenali. A.1 further informed to P.W.1 that he is floating another company under the name and style of National Dwellings of India Limited and advised P.W.1 to collect the money from the depositors. When P.W.1 asked them to pay huge arrears A.1 also threatened P.W.1 that if depositors will not pay the future installments to National Dwellings of India Limited he would not repay the money to the depositors. Later P.W.1 received a letter from A.3 acknowledging the mistake done by the petitioner and further requested P.W.1 to collect the money from depositors and send it to the National Dwellings of India Limited. After June 1996 P.W.1 addressed A.1 and A.3 for payment of the amount to the depositors. But A.1 and A.3 did not agreed and failed to pay the amount to the deposit holders. P.W.1 on 10.09.1996 accompanied by some depositors went to Madras to meet A.1. On 10.09.1996 at 9.30 a.m. they all met A.1 at his chambers at Madras where P.W.1 informed A.1 about his difficulties and requested A.1 to repay the money to certificate holders at first instance. But A.1 did not respect the words of P.W.1 and thereupon P.W.1 finally requested A.1 to pay the amount to the depositors. On that A.1 agreed to pay the amount to the certificate holders after making some documentation. He issued the post dated cheques 6 in number in the name of P.W.1 with various dates for Rs.97,200/- out of the said six cheques only two were encashed and others were dishonoured. Thus A.1 to A.3 conspired together to cheat the public. 3 On the complaint filed by P.W.1 the learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali referred the same to the police as provided under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report and the same was registered as a case in Cr.NO.95 of 1997 for the offences punishable under sections 120(B), 420 of IPC and investigated into and after completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed, which was taken on file as C.C.No.177 of 1998. Since the other accused i.e. A.1 and A.3 are absconding, the trial court proceeded against the petitioner only. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 32 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.24. 4 The trial court having assessed the entire evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution established the guilt of the petitioner in respect of charges framed against the petitioner under sections 420 and 406 of IPC only and accordingly convicted him for the said offences and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and further sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ten days for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC. However, the petitioner is not found guilty of the offence punishable under section 120 (B) of IPC. Questioning the said judgment dated 06.12.2001 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.628 of 2002 and the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur by his judgment dated 25.05.2004 while allowing the said appeal partly, set aside the conviction and sentenced passed by the trial court in respect of the charge under section 420 of IPC, however, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court in respect of the charge under section 406 of IPC. Hence this revision. 5 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded there are no merits in this revision and that the judgments of the courts below need no interference, however, requested the court take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 6 In the light of the said submission, this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 25.05.2004 and the petitioner was taken into custody immediately. It is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted on 17.06.2004, the petitioner came out of the jail. Thus the petitioner was in jail for a period of more than three weeks. Since the offence relates to the year 1995 and since the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is only for a period of one year and inasmuch as the petitioner was already in jail for a period of three weeks, this court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to that of the period which the petitioner had already undergone. 7 Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects, is dismissed. --------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn