HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.8 OF 2005 Date: 12.03.2010 Between: V. Hariprasada Rao ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP ……Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.8 OF 2005 ORDER: The sole petitioner herein is the 2nd accused. The trial court i.e., Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam in C.C.No.372 of 1992 found A-2 guilty of the offences under Sections 120-B, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count. The lower appellate court i.e., the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, on appeal in C.A.No.111 of 1999 confirmed convictions and sentences of A-2 for offences under Sections 120- B and 420 IPC; set aside conviction and sentence of A-2 for offence under Section 468 IPC; and altered conviction of A-2 under Section 471 IPC to one under Section 465 IPC and sentenced him to Simple Imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.1,000/-. A-2 is loco foreman at Palasa Railway Station. A-1, A-2 and A-4 are sons-in-law and son of A-3 respectively. It is alleged that prior to 21.11.1990 all the accused conspired together at Palasa and started cheating the public by giving false promise that they would be able to secure appointment orders in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at Bhuvaneswar and Visakhapatnam and collected monies ranging from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/- from each of the candidates in pursuance of their conspiracy. After considering both oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution, the courts below passed the above said convictions and sentences against petitioner/A-2. The alleged delay in giving F.I.R in a case of this nature is not in any way fatal to the prosecution case. This is not a case arising out of factions in which because of delay in giving F.I.R., there may be possibility of confabulations in order to rope in innocent persons into the net work of this crime. Non examination of investigating officer is also not fatal in all cases, unless there are any serious contradictions or omissions touching material aspects of the case which go to root of the case. No such contradictions or omissions are there in this case, which go to root of the case. It is stated that in cross examination, some of the witnesses admitted that A-1 alone was responsible for providing jobs and A-1 alone promised to get jobs. According to the prosecution case, the entire episode took place in pursuance of the conspiracy of A-1 to A-4. A-2 was also convicted for the conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC by both the courts below. Both the courts after considering oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution came to the conclusion on facts that the petitioner/A-2 committed the above said offence for which he was convicted. There are no grounds in law to assail judgment of the lower appellate court which based its conclusions on facts and evidence on record. There are no grounds in law to interfere with findings of the lower appellate court in this Revision Case. In the result, the Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:12.03.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL RC NO.8 OF 2005 Date:12.03.2010. Gk.