HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2185 of 2004 O R D E R: This appeal arises out of the acquittal of the accused by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Medchal, in CC No. 419 of 1997 dated 12.7.2004. The appellant herein is the complainant in the above case and he filed a complaint against all the accused u/Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable u/Secs. 405, 418, 420 and 423 r/w. 34 IPC. 2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant had entered into an oral agreement for purchase of agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.1 and Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.2 out of total extent of Ac.25.28 gts. situated at Thimmaipally village known as Kummari Kunti Patta Chelka, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from accused 1 to 13 on 3.2.1988. It is further alleged that all the accused convinced the complainant that they are the sole and absolute owners and that there was no other legal heirs, protected tenants of the above said land. The complainant based on the above oral agreement had paid advance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st accused on 3.2.1988 and published a paper publication in Eenadu paper dated 12.2.1988 and thereafter waited for one week and finally on 17.3.1988, the complainant got the said lands registered in his name vide docucment No. 2433/88 dt. 17.3.1988 at SRO, Medchal, since he has not received any objections for the publication made in the newspaper. The complainant has paid the complete balance amount of Rs.30,000/- to the accused 1 to 13 on 17.3.1988 and thus total consideration amount of Rs.40,000/- is paid as on 17.3.1988. The complainant has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land from the date of purchase. The complainant surprisingly, received summons from the court stating that he had been made as respondent and orders were served on him restraining him from executing the sale deed from third party and suit for partition was filed. The complainant was shocked to note that all the accused had suppressed the fact that there were other minor sons and sons of accused who have now filed the suit claiming their share in the ancestral property. Thus, all the accused had mislead regarding the ownership of the said agricultural lands stating that they are the only and actual legal heirs of the property. Therefore, all the accused have committed offences punishable u/Secs. 405,418,420 and 423 r/w. 34 IPC. 3. The court below has examined the accused u/Sec. 246 Cr.P.C. and they have pleaded not guilty for the offences alleged against them. The complainant, in order to establish the offences against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs. P1 to P6. The learned Magistrate taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable u/Secs. 418, 423, and 420 r/w. 34 IPC, and thereby acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal has been filed. 4. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant-complainant could able to establish the offence punishable u/Secs.418, 420, 423 r/w. 34 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? 5. According to the complainant, on 3.2.1988 he has entered into an agreement with the accused for sale of the property and paid an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- as the accused convinced him that they are the sole and absolute owners of the said land and there are no other legal heirs or protected tenants for the above said land and subsequently, he had made a paper publication and he had not received any objections from anybody and thereafter he obtained a registered sale deed on 17.3.1988 by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-. Subsequently, he came to know that the sons of the accused have filed a suit for partition and obtained an order restraining him from executing the sale deed in favour third parties. 6. On the above given facts, the learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the accused has cheated the complainant stating that they are the absolute owners and there are no other legal heirs for the subject land and thereby caused loss to him. P.W.1, who is the complainant, has admitted in his cross-examination that he knows the family of the accused prior to the transaction for about 10 to 15 years and therefore, the accused are known persons to him. The complainant also very well known the family of the accused and that he has not stated that the accused have cheated him by selling the said property to him. P.W.2 also not supported the case of the complainant. P.W.3 is the Registrar, who registered the sale deed. The only evidence available on record is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to establish the offence punishable against the accused. When P.W.1 is aware that the accused family for about 10 to 15 years, he would have enquired as to how they acquired the subject property covered under Ex.P4 and he has to verify whether the said property is acquired property of the accused or the ancestral property of the accused. Without making any enquiry, the complainant, appears to have purchased the property from the accused. Therefore, the fault lies on the complainant and he purchased the property without making proper verification. P.w.1 admitted in his cross- examination that he does not know in whose favour patta stands. P.W.2 does not know about the transaction. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the accused induced the complainant and made him to purchase the property from them. Therefore, from the above evidence, the complainant failed to establish that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/Secs. 418, 420 and 423 r/w. 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the court below has rightly came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to establish the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the findings of the court below does not warrant any interference of this court. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD Dt. 11-02-2011. Mjl/*