THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No. 167 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 24.06.2002 passed in C.C. No. 29 of 2000 on the file of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Srikalahasti, whereby and whereunder the accused were acquitted of the offences under Section 120-B, 109, 418, 420 and 423 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case for disposal of the present revision are as under: The revision Petitioner is a scheduled Bank known as Sri Venkaeswara Grameena Bank being promoted by Government of India and Government of Andhra Pradesh and it is an organ of Indian Bank with 75 branches in Chittore District and one of its branches is at Bachinaidukandriga. The Bank advanced loan against pledge of gold ornaments. A.1 is the bank appraiser and A.2 the loanee. That on the certification of A.1 as to the purity and weight of gold pledged by A.2, the bank advanced the loan amount. On 9.1.1997, A2 obtained Rs.26,000/- vide Loan No. 16/97 by pledging one chain, four gold rings and on god dollar appraised to be 89 grams weight, but the actual weight is 58 grams. On the same day, A2 also obtained Rs.50,000/- vide Loan No. 17/97 by pledging 46 gold gundlu, five rings, one chain and four jumkee ear studs appraised to be 169 grams, but the actual weight is 92 grams. However, the gold pledged by A.2 is proved to be spurious and under weighed. Since A1- bank appraiser, who certified the purity and weight of the ornaments pledged by the loanees in favour of the bank, failed to report to duty, the bank authorities suspected his bonafides and PW.1- Manager of the said Bank got reappraised through PW.2 and found them to be spurious and under weighed. When the truth came to light, PW.1 preferred a complaint before the Buchinaidukandriga P.S. and a case was registered in Crime No.42 of 1997 under Sections 420 IPC. Later the Police after investigation laid charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti againat A.1 and other accused for the offences under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken the case on file as C.C.No.29 of 2000 and framed charges under Sections 120(B), 418,109, 420 and 423 IPC. 3. In support of the prosecution’s case, PW.1 to PW.6 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 besides marking M.Os 1 to 7. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses and considering the other material on record, found A2 not guilty of the alleged offences and acquitted him of the said charges for the said offences. it also acquitted A1 by extending benefit of doubt. While doing so, the court observed that though the needle of suspicion pointed out towards A1, he could not have committed the offence without the connivance of persons incharge of the bank at the relevant point of time and further observed that the cashier of the Bank who was suspended on account of the incident was not arrayed as one of the accused. Thus, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case against both the accused as required under law and as such, both the accused were acquitted. 6. The prosecution spared no efforts to convince the trial court that all the accused were closely related to A1 appraiser of the Bank. That PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that the accused repaid part of the loan amount during the course of trial of the case. Therefore, the real culprit is A.1 as he has planted all the loanees who are either his associates or close relations and succeeded in his plans in duping the bank to gain wrongfully. However, it could not succeed in its efforts. 7. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the managerial personnel of the bank, being non-technical persons, have got to rely on the certification of A1 appraiser and as such, they cannot be attributed or imputed with any motives. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trail court in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as required under law cannot stand to legal scrutiny and is liable to be dismissed. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the court below came to the conclusion that A1 and A2 are not guilty after considering the evidence both oral and documentary and the other material brought on record. Therefore, the finding of the court below does not in any way warrant interference from this court. 9. The evidence of PW.1- Manager of the Bank and PW.2 – the second appraiser of the Bank is to the effect that the purity and weight of the gold pledged by A2 was not as per certificate issued by A1-first appraiser. That PW.1 sanctioned the loan in good faith relying upon the certificate issued by A1 and further he has reiterated whatever he has stated in his complaint. PW.2 corroborated the evidence of PW.1. That during the course of investigation of the case, PW.1 was transferred to another branch of the Bank and PW.3 was appointed as Manager of the said bank. His evidence is that he has produced the pledged gold before the Police during the course of investigation under cover of Panchanama in the presence of mediators PW.4 and others. PW.6 is S.H.O. who has investigated the case. Whereas PW.5 is Circle Inspector who laid the charge sheet into court after verifying the investigation already done by PW.6. 10. This court is aware that either the appellate court or revisional court has got to be careful and cautious in dealing with and in disposing of cases of this nature. In other words, the court has to tread cautiously in deciding the fate of accused in cases of acquittal. 11. In the facts, circumstances, evidence as referred hereinabove and also having regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel on either side, this court is convinced that the impugned order dated 24.06.2002 passed in C.C. No.29 of 2000 by the Additional Munsif Magistrate, does not suffer from any error, irregularity, infirmity and/or illegality and as such, the same is not liable to be interfered with in any manner. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -03-2010 Stp