THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1870 OF 2004 DATED: 16-07-2010 Between Devang D.Vora …Petitioner-A1 And State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another. …Respondent-Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1870 OF 2004 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 14-09-2004, in Crl.A.No.76 of 2004, on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in confirming the conviction of the petitioner-A1 of the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 511 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months, as recorded by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 20-02-2004, in C.C.No.299 of 2001. 2. Brief, facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision, may be stated as follows: A1 and A2 in connivance with each other and with an intention to cheat the Punjab National Bank by getting an amount of Rs.1.62 crores fraudulently, A2 managed to send telegraphic transfer to the Corporation Bank, Badi Chowdi, Hyderabad, by securing the code number of the Punjab National Bank, Foreshore Branch, Mumbai to the Punjab National Bank, Bank Street Branch, Hyderabad, to credit such amount to the account of A1 bearing No.1349 standing in the name of Shreenidhi Enterprises which is a bogus and unexisting firm of A1. The Punjab National Bank, Bank Street Branch unable to identify the bogus telegraphic transfer sent the pay orders to the Corporation Bank, Badi Chowdi to credit the said amount and the Manager of the Corporation Bank, on account of non operation of such account, entertained a doubt about the release of the cash and confirmed such fact of bogus telegraphic transfer, has detained A1 when he came to draw the amount on 29-06-1998 whereby police apprehended the accused on information from Bank authorities. Therefore, the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 r/w 511 IPC. 3. Charges under Sections 468, 471 and 420 r/w 511 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P46. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, while acquitting A2 of the offences with which he was charged and also A1 of the charges under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, convicted and sentenced A1 as above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed. Challenging the same, this revision is preferred by A1. 7. Mr.C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-A1 contended that no reasonable opportunity was given to A1 to cross-examine the witness, that the application was also filed in the appellate Court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, but the appellate Court did not give any permission, that absolutely there is no evidence to show that the bank transferred an amount of Rs.1.62 crores, that except the bank officials saying that the petitioner came to the bank and verified that any amount was credited to his account, there is no other evidence and from that circumstance, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner made an attempt to cheat the bank and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner or at any rate to remand the matter to the court below to give an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 8. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with, that the evidence is very clear that the petitioner made an attempt to cheat the bank and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments. 9. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the findings of both the courts below are legal, proper and correct? 10. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are based upon no evidence or perverse findings have been given by the Courts below or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence was overlooked, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. 11. With regard to cross-examination, no doubt a valuable right is conferred on the accused to cross-examine the witness and that right cannot be denied by the Court. It has to be seen whether it is a case of denial of valuable right conferred on the accused or not. As seen from the evidence of witnesses, it is clear that they came from a long distance. They were examined on different dates. On each and every occasion, the counsel appearing for the petitioner was absent and no representation was made on behalf of the counsel in the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court has no option except to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witness. The accused also did not avail the same. After examining some of the witnesses, a petition was filed to re-call the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the trial Court giving reasons. The same was opposed by the prosecution on the ground that the witnesses belong to different places. That petition was dismissed and the said order has become final. Similarly, when the appeal was filed, the petitioner filed another application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to permit him to adduce additional evidence and that petition was also dismissed by giving cogent reasons and that order has become final. When the witnesses are coming from a long distance and for any reason, the case is adjourned, it is not possible for the prosecution to get all the witnesses again. The witnesses were examined on different dates. On each and every occasion, the petitioner was not ready with his counsel to proceed with the trial. On one occasion when the Court has shown indulgence in allowing the petition on payment of costs, the petitioner expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount. The traveling and daily expenses have to be paid when a witness has come from a long distance. It cannot be a burden to the State exchequer. When a witness has come from Delhi, necessarily he has to incur traveling expenses and daily expenses to a tune of Rs.20,000/-. So that amount cannot be shown to be abnormal or unreasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the right of the petitioner has been curtailed by the Court. 12. No doubt, there is no direct evidence to show that the accused got created or fabricated Ex.P19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that there is no direct evidence to show that the accused got transferred an amount of Rs.1.62 crores to be credited into his account, Law permits that the offence can be proved by the circumstantial evidence. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firm and cogent. All the circumstances if taken together cumulatively form a chain so complete and in all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else, it can be a basis for conviction. As seen from the evidence, the petitioner opened an account in Corporation Bank, Badi Chowdi, Hyderabad, on 12-05-1998 with a deposit of Rs.1500/-. Then within one month thereafter, the Corporation Bank received pay order from Punjab National Bank, Badi Chowdi branch, Hyderabad, who in turn received the telegraphic message from Punjab National Bank, Foreshore branch, Mumbai. As the amount to be credited to the account of the petitioner was huge, the bank officials got a suspicion and enquired with the bank, which issued the pay order. They also got suspicion that the account of the petitioner was not in operative. They enquired with the Punjab National Bank, Hyderabad, who verified from their counter part at Bombay and found that the telegraphic transfer was found to be fake and fabricated one. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that within one month of opening of account by the petitioner, he went to the bank and tried to verify whether the amount of Rs.1.62 crores was credited into his account. Then on suspicion, he was detained and the same was informed to police. The petitioner knows about his business transaction with other persons. The alleged transfer of money is from Hindustan Lever Limited. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was having business transactions with Hindustan Lever Limited and got transferred the huge amount to his account. Therefore, the counter part of the Punjab National Bank at Foreshore branch, Mumbai, verified the alleged express transfer under Ex.P19 and found that it was forged and created document. There is no necessity for any third person to create a document except the petitioner because the amount to be credited should be into his account and thereby he would get benefit from withdrawing the same. Therefore, the necessary inference that can be drawn from the circumstances of the case is that the petitioner must have fabricated the document Ex.P19 so as to transfer Rs.1.62 crores to Punjab National Bank, Badi Chowdi, Hyderabad, who in turn issued pay order in favour of the petitioner to credit the amount into his account. Therefore, these circumstances would clearly go to show that there was no scope or possibility for any third person to do those acts. Admittedly, the amount has not been withdrawn by the petitioner. He made an attempt to withdraw the amount, but he was not successful. If the petitioner was successful, definitely it would cause wrongful loss to the bank and the petitioner would have gained wrongfully. Hence, it is a clear case where the petitioner made an attempt to cheat the bank. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court on proper appreciation of evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 14-09-2004, in Crl.A.No.76 of 2004, on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Period of detention, if any, undergone by the petitioner-A1 during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:16-07-2010 Hsd