HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 931OF 2004 DATED 29th JUNE, 2010. BETWEEN Poluru Narayana …..Petitioner/Accused and The State of AP, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor …Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 931 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 20.5.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2003 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Cuddapah, conﬁrming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/Accused for the oﬀence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC in the order dated 29.9.2003 in C.C.No. 133 of 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused borrowed various amounts from diﬀerent creditors-PWs. 1 to 11 from May 1997 to May 1998 amounting to Rs.18,39,000/- and failed to repay the same and that on 13.7.1998 he absconded from Badvel town with cash and gold ornaments with a view to cheat the creditors. Based on the same, the police registered a case in Cr.No. 55 of 1998 and investigated into. After ﬁling the charge sheet, the trial Court took the cognisance of the crime under Section 420 of the IPC against the accused and proceeded with trial. The trial Court on a full-ﬂedged trial and appreciation of the evidence on record found the petitioner/Accused guilty of the oﬀence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for two years and also to pay ﬁne of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer SI for six months. On appeal being Criminal Appeal. No. 124 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner/accused, the lower Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal conﬁrming the conviction and sentence ordered by the Court below. Hence this revision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution does not disclose any oﬀence committed by the petitioner and that there is no any intention of deception on the part of the petitioner to cheat the borrowers. The learned Counsel for the petitioner represented that the evidence adduced does not clinchingly pointing towards the guilt of the accused in view of the money given to him. This Court perused the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is evident from the record that the petitioner/accused borrowed various amounts from P.Ws. 1 to 11 and also executed promissory notes to pay the same on demand. The said promissory notes are marked at Exs. P2 to P.31 which clearly indicate that it is a civil transaction which has to be agitated before the competent civil Court. Further the investigating oﬃcer was not examined by the prosecution and there is no explanation as to why the Investigating Oﬃcer was not examined before the lower Court. Non examination of the Investating Oﬃcer is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. In view of the foregoing discussion, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and conﬁrmed by the lower appellate Court against the petitioner/accused is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed accordingly. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 29th JUNE, 2010. Msnr.