IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1242 OF 2004 Between: Ganjala Anand @ Anand Babu .....PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1242 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 (1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment, dated 15.07.2004, in Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2003, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case may be stated as follows: A1 and A2 are the close associates to each other. PW.4 was working as Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation (L.I.C.), Machilipatnam. A1 worked as Assistant under PW.4 from 01.03.2000 to 30.09.2000. Later A1 discontinued his service from the office of PW.4. On 06.09.2000, PW.4 noticed that a cheque leaf bearing No.0005196 was missing from his cheque book and reported the same to PW.5 - President of the L.I.C. Co-operative Bank and requested him to stop the payment, if the cheque is presented by anybody. While so, A1 after committing theft of the empty cheque leaf bearing No.0005196, filed it as if PW.4 issued the said cheque to one T.Y.K. Rajasekhar for an amount of Rs.23,000/-, who is a fictitious person. The signature of PW.4 was forged by A1 with fraudulent intention to cheat the bank authorities. A1 conspired with A2, for withdrawing the amount by presenting cheque in the L.I.C. Co-operative Bank and induced A2 that he would pay Rs.2,000/- for his service. On 29.11.2000 at about 12:00 Noon, A1 and A2, in pursuance of their conspiracy, came to the L.I.C. Employees Co-operative Bank with an intention to cheat the bank authorities by presenting the forged cheque for withdrawal of an amount of Rs.23,000/- from the account of PW.4. A2 by putting the date and signature on the reverse side of the cheque had presented the same to the bank as if his name is T.Y.K. Rajasekhar. On verification, the bank authorities found that it was the cheque which was stolen from the cheque book of PW.4. During that time PW.4 was also present in the bank and he identified that the signature found on the said cheque does not belong to him. Then PWs.1 to 5 caught hold of A1 and A2. A1 and A2 confessed before the bank authorities that they presented the forged cheque with dishonest intention to encash the amount from the account of PW.4. Then PW.1 gave a report to PW.8, who registered a case. During the course of investigation, the admitted signatures of A1 and A2 were obtained and sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. The Hand Writing Expert gave opinion, and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. 3. When the charges under Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with 120-B I.P.C. were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and Exs.P-1 to P-13 were got marked. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but got marked Ex.D-1. 6. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, upon consideration of evidence of PW.1, vide judgment, dated 14.11.2003, in C.C.No.342 of 2001, found A2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 471 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; found A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 471 read with 120-B I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. A1 was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. and A1 and A2 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 468 read with 120-B I.P.C. On appeals, the said convcitions and sentences were confirmed by the appellate Court. Challenging the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2003, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by A1. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence to show that the present petitioner forged the cheque - Ex.P- 2; that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner conspired with A2 in order to cheat PW.4; that except the evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence to show that the petitioner committed forgery of the signature on the cheque; that the evidence of PW.1 is inadmissible under law, in view of the fact that PW.5, who is the President of L.I.C. Employees Co-operative Bank to whom the petitioner made an extra judicial confession, did not say about the petitioner confessing about his guilt and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PW.1 is very clear that the petitioner made an extra judicial confession with regard to committing of forgery; that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below need not be interfered with inasmuch as the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record; that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court against the petitioner and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, or contrary to law, or illegal or improper, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. A finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 11. For the offence under Section 471 I.P.C., the prosecution must prove that the petitioner fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record. Similarly, for the punishment under Section 120-B I.P.C., the prosecution must establish criminal conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120-A I.P.C., which reads that when two are more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. 12. The allegation is that the present petitioner worked with PW.4 for about seven months. During that period, it is alleged that the petitioner committed theft of one cheque leaf belonging to PW.4. Further, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner filled the columns in the cheque and gave it to A2 for presentation of the same in the L.I.C. Employees Co-operative Bank. Before presentation of the said cheque, PW.4 reported to PW.5 that one of his cheque leaves was found missing and therefore, requested him not to honour the cheque when it was presented by anybody. When the cheque was presented by A2, on verification, it was found that it is the same cheque, which was missing as per PW.4. Then PW.4 was called to the Bank. It is alleged that the petitioner made a confession before PW.5 that he committed forgery of the signature on the cheque and gave it to A2 for the purpose of encashing the same. 13. As seen from the evidence, there is absolutely no evidence to show about the filling of columns in the cheque or committing forgery by signing the signature of PW.4. on the cheque by the petitioner. Admittedly, the cheque in question was sent to the Hand Writing Expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the petitioner, which were taken by the police during the course of investigation. The Hand Writing Expert did not give opinion stating that the admitted signatures of the petitioner were tallying with the signature on the cheque - Ex.P-2. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner committed theft of the cheque leaf of PW.4. Even PW.4 himself stated that the petitioner did not commit any theft of the cheque. The only evidence available on record is evidence of PW.1, who stated that the petitioner confessed before PW.5 about the offence. That evidence cannot be accepted in view of the fact that PW.5 did not state that the petitioner gave a confession before him. Therefore, there is no direct evidence or circumstances to infer that the petitioner/A1 and A2 conspired together in order to cause wrongful loss to PW.4 by presenting cheque - Ex.P-2. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner committed forgery by making certain writings and the signature of PW.4 on Ex.P-2. In the absence of these aspects, both the Courts below erroneously found the petitioner guilty. The findings of both the Courts below are not based upon any proper evidence on record. Both the Courts below gave perverse findings. When the findings are perverse, the revisional Court can interfere with the same. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 471 read with 120-B I.P.C. Hence, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the present petitioner/A1 are liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 15.07.2004, in Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2003, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. The petitioner/A1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 471 read with 120-B I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same. Bail bonds of the petitioner/A1 shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be returned to him. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 16, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1242 OF 2004 July 16, 2010