HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.962 OF 2004 Date: 29-07-2011 Between: Kodimala Damodar Reddy and another. - - - Petitioners/ Complainants. Versus Baiguri Ramulu, two others - - - Respondents/ and Accused The State of A.P. Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Complainant. This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.962 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioners/De- facto-complainants (for short, ‘the de-facto complainants’) challenging judgment dated 09-03-2004 passed by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in Calender Case No.1580 of 1996, whereby while acquitting A-1 to A-4 in the case under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, first petitioner/PW.1 herein was directed to pay compensation of Rs.250/- per head to A-1 to A-4 and in default of paying the amount to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days and further directed that if the said compensation remained unpaid, the procedure as contemplated under Section 250 Cr.P.C. was to be followed for the recovery of the amount, and also directed that A-1 to A- 4 could collect the compensation of Rs.250/- each after the expiry of appeal time/revision time. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The de-facto complainants purchased 30% share of the M/s. Kiran Bricks and Bricks from a true owner of it i.e., PW.2. On 04-05-1995, A-1 to A-4 jointly invented a document as if A-1 to A-3 had purchased two Non-Judicial stamp papers worth of Rs.100/- each from a stamp vendor PW.3- T.Rani Sharada for the purpose of entering into an agreement of purchase of 30% share from PW.2-K.Balareddy, the Managing Partner of M/s. Kiran Bricks and Bricks situated at Kazipet village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Nalgonda District, and obtained the signatures of PW.2 and thereafter committed forgery by altering the number and date originally written on the stamp papers as “4198” and “4199” dated 04-05-1995 and got it attested through A-4 putting earlier date of purchase and exhibited that they (A-1 to A-3) were the sole purchasers of the share on payment of Rs.20,000/- each creating a post dated cheque No.266624, dated 10-09-1995 for Rs.15,000/- showing to be drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Mallapur, Ranga Reddy District, and filed an Interlocutory Application before the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge at Bhongir and obtained injunction orders in I.A. No.13 of 1996 in O.S. No.6 of 1996 against PW.2 and also against two others in that behalf. Thereupon, the de-facto complainants namely Kodimala Damodar Reddy and Smt. K. Vanitha Reddy, presented a private complaint against the accused before the lower Court. 3. XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, recorded the sworn statement of the de-facto complainants, and registered the complaint on his file as C.C. No.1580 of 1996 against A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. The Respondents 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 were tried for those offences and, ultimately, the judgment dated 09-03-2004 referred above was passed and aggrieved thereby, the de-facto complainants have preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners/De- facto complainants that the accused filed O.S. No.6 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, against PW.2 and the de-facto complainants namely Damodar Reddy (PW.1) and K. Vanitha Reddy, for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of 30% share in the plaint schedule partnership firm, which is also the subject matter in the criminal case and on contest, the suit was dismissed on the ground that Ex.A-1-deed of agreement dated 05-05-1995 and Ex.A-2-Receipt for Rs.20,000/- dated 05-05-1995 were tampered with and the corresponding criminal case was also pending, and further in pursuance of order dated 06-02-2003 passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.5196 of 2001, the de-facto complainants filed Crl.M.P. No.1011 of 2003 before the trial Court for summoning the deed of agreement dated 05-05-1998 and GPA dated 05-05-1995, but it was dismissed holding that secondary evidence of the said documents could be adduced and the same be used for appreciating the case, and further contrary to that the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the original documents were not filed and it was also unfair to impose compensation to be paid to the accused in the case against the first Petitioner/PW.1 herein and, hence, the order is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the lower court for consideration afresh. 7. The point that arises for consideration is, whether there are sufficient grounds in order to set aside the order of the trial Court including the question of payment of compensation to the accused in the case by the First petitioner/de-facto complainant herein? 8. Further a copy of the judgment passed in O.S. No.6 of 1996 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Bhongir, Nalgonda District provides that in the result portion of the same, it is clearly observed as follows : “..Since, in this case the conduct of the plaintiffs is unfair and in view of the tampering of the stamps Exs.A-1 and A-2 and where a Criminal case is also pending, and it is also against to the provisions of the law, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of Specific Performance of agreement of sale and the suit is liable to be dismissed.” 9. The aforesaid observation which is against the defendants is very important because it is with reference to the documents in question in the Criminal case also. Much emphasis is to be given to the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that even though the petition i.e., Crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2003 was filed to call for the documents in question in order to substantiate the charges made against the accused in the Criminal case, it was dismissed giving reasons stated supra. Further, unless those documents are considered, the charges made against the accused could not have been properly decided. Mere obtaining of and producing of certified copies of the documents is not suffice in this case. In these circumstances, it is also not reasonable to impose any compensation to be paid to the accused by the first petitioner/de-facto complainant. 10. On the consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the trial Court erred in passing the judgement and accordingly the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to take necessary steps for calling the originals of the Agreement of Sale and General Power of Attorney (Exs.P-13 and P-14) from the concerned Court and give an opportunity to the Petitioners/de-facto complainants to adduce necessary evidence with regards to the question of establishing the charge against the accused and then give opportunity to the accused to adduce necessary evidence on their behalf. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J July 29, 2011. VV/DSH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 125 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.962 OF 2004 (Allowed) Date:29-07-2011 VV/DSH.