THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CRL.R.C.NO. 144 of 2007 ORDER Factual back ground of the appeal is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 141 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the accused- appellant. As per the prosecution story, the accused is a resident of Gollaprolu and President of United Front Cultural Association and he belongs to S.C. caste. Under the guise of the said post, taken the advantage of innocence and illiteracy of the locals of Gollaprolu collected the funds for issuing patta certificates of house sites and lands and misappropriated the same. After following due procedure as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. the lower Court conducted trial and after due trial found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 406 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months and also to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and the said sentences shall run separately. Against the said Orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, accused preferred an appeal before the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada in Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2006 and the learned Additional District Judge while confirming the punishment for the offence under Section 420 IPC, set aside the judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 406 IPC. Against the said orders, the present Criminal Revision is filed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused argued that the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 420 IPC is not proved by legal and reliable evidence and the learned District Judge erred in placing reliance on the highly interested and discrepant testimony of P.W-1 to P.W-3 and Exs.P-10 to P-13. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the appellate Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC is sustainable? Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to refer to Section 420 IPC. In order to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, the following ingredients shall be proved by the prosecution: (i) There must be deception i.e. the accused must have deceived someone; (ii) That by the said deception, the accused must induce a person: (a) to deliver any property; or (b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security or any thing which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being covered into a valuable property. Therefore, for a person to be convicted under Section 420 IPC, it is to be established not only that he has cheated someone, but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person, who has treated to deliver any property etc. In case, under Section 420 IPC, the question of the guilty or innocence of the accused depends on the proof of actual facts and not on state of accused mind. In that back ground, let us see, to what extent the prosecution could able to prove the offence under Section 420 IPC against the accused. Ex.P-1 is the report given by P.W-1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Gollaprolu. In his report, it is noted that he received a complaint from one Ramana of Gollaprolu. He has submitted a complaint to the Joint Collector of Kakinada alleging that the accused collecting amounts from the public, on the promise that he will give house site pattas, pattedar passbooks. The said report was dated 15.7.2002 and the same was forwarded to the District Collector and in turn the same was lodged before the police for action. P.W-2 is a Mandal Revenue Inspector, who recorded the statements of some of the victims. Ex.P-5 is a crucial document in which the victims gave the statements to P.W-2, the way in which they have parted with the money to the accused. A perusal of the recitals of Ex.P-5 it also proves that the accused also collected amounts in installments ranging from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- on a promise that he will get sanction of pattas and passbooks. It is the case of the accused-revision petitioner that he collected the amounts noted under Ex.P-5 for conducting Dharnas in order to get the pattas for the poramboku lands. Be thus as it may, the fact remains that the accused collected amounts from various landless poor and he failed to provide the house site pattas as promised. Only under the guise of his promise, he collected the amounts from the landless poor. If he really intends to get the pattas, through Dharnas, there is no necessity for him to collect the amounts from the victims and as well he can raise the amounts, on his own. This is a case where the accused collected money under the guise of getting pattas in the name of victims and the victims have in one voice stated before P.W-2 that they have paid monies in installments to the accused, on that promise only. Ex.P-5 clearly reads the version of the victims and the same was spoken to by P.W-2 before the Court. P.W-5 is another material witness, who submitted a report to the Joint Collector against the accused. The said report is marked as Ex.P-2, which is also a material document to be noted. As per the evidence of P.W-2, the accused collected several amounts from several villagers on the promise that he will get the pattas and passbooks for poramboku lands and ration cards and on the said promise he paid Rs. 1,000/- to the accused two years back and when he demanded for return of the said amount, the accused threatened him. The evidence of P.W-3 was discussed by the learned Additional District Judge in detail and also came to the conclusion that the accused collected money from the landless poor as noted in Ex.P- 5. P.W-4 is another villager of Gollaprolu, who has parted with Rs. 2,000/- with the accused about five years ago on the same promise. She is also one of the witness who gave evidence before the P.W-2. In the cross examination, she deposed that the accused beat her husband when he demanded for return of amount of Rs. 2,000/- paid by her. P.Ws-5 and 6, P.W.12, P.W.13 are some of the victims, who have paid the money to the accused on his promise of getting pattas in their names. They deposed in one voice that they have paid the amount to the accused on his promise. Nothing was elicited in their cross examination to dis believe their version. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2,3,4 ,5,6 and 12 is corroborative, convincing, genuine and trustworthy. There is no necessity for them to speak falsehood against the accused. Above all, P.W-3 in his evidence clearly asserted that he has intimated to the District Collector that in case accused is not arrested for his latches, he will go on hunger strike. That part of the evidence is suffice to appreciate his trustworthiness and boldness. Viewed from any angle in the totality of the circumstances, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Section 420 IPC and accordingly, I find the accused guilty of the said offence. The learned Additional District Judge discussed the evidence in detail and came to the conclusion that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Hence, I see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Additional District Judge and accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As I see from the record that the accused was in jail for 81 days and was on suspension of the sentence. The defence counsel while concluding the arguments submitted that if at all, this Court found accused guilty, for the offence under Section 420 IPC, a lenient view may be taken regarding the quantum of sentence. In view of the aforesaid findings, while taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, a lenient view is taken by reducing the sentence of imprisonment of three years to two years, while confirming the imposition of fine of Rs. 5,000/- which was ordered in the lower Court. With this modification, the Revision is partly allowed. ___________________ 11.2.2011 CHV