HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1616 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused, Nattala Sankara Rao, assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2003 dated 16-09-2004 passed by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka, in C.C. No.395 of 1999 dated 20-03-2003 for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused was resident of Chinthalalova, Jai Andhra Colony, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. One Satyala Kuncharao, who died during the course of trial, and PWs.1 and 2 failed tenth class and accused told them that he is working in Civil Supplies Department in Visakhapatnam Collectorate, he got influence in Collectorate, Municipal Corporation, Air Port and other Government Departments and promising them to get them employment demanded them to pay Rs.30,000/- each and all of them paid Rs.30,000/- each in 1998 in the presence of PWs.3 and 4. Thereafter, accused did not secure any employment to them, then they demanded to return the amount but he did not return the money. Complaint was given by all the three persons, on which a case in Crime No.76 of 1999 was registered by the Malkapuram Police Station against the accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC and the police investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 3. For the charge framed against the accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC, he pleaded not guilty. 4. To substantiate its case, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 and P-2. On behalf of the accused, he got examined himself as DW.1 and one Keelu Narayana as DW.2 and got marked Exs.D-1 to D-4. 5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the incriminating material against him in the evidence of prosecution. 6. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC and accordingly convicted him for the same and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Challenging the same, accused preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved of the same, this revision is filed by the accused. 7. Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the accused, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision ? 9. Evidence of PW.1 is that in May 1998, promising to provide jobs to him, PW.2 and one Kuncharao, accused collected Rs.30,000/- from each of them, took him to various offices on the pretext of providing employment and ultimately he failed to provide job. PW.2 has also spoken similar to PW.1. PW.3, a mediator, deposed that as desired by PW.1, he went along with him to the house of the accused where gave Rs.30,000/- to the accused in his presence and PW.2 also gave Rs.30,000/- to the accused for job purpose. One year thereafter, PW.1 informed him that accused did not provide jobs and did not return the money. Thereupon, he questioned the accused about the same, for which he (accused) requested time but did not return the amount. He also said that 3 to 4 times, he went to the house of the accused to question about the employment of PWs.1 & 2 etc., and finally accused denied to return the amount. On that, he advised PWs.1 and 2 and Kuncharao to give complaint against the accused to the police. 10. Evidence of the accused as DW.1 is that he is working as General Secretary to SC, ST and BC Welfare Association, Chinthalaova and he also worked as Chairman, Vidya Committee, AKS UP School, Gandhigram. He further stated that he filed a suit against one P.V. Ramana Rao, who is maternal uncle of PW.1, and the same is decreed in his favour. However, most astonishingly, he never stated that he has not collected the money as alleged by PWs.1 and 2 and Kucharao promising them employment. This single circmstance is sufficient to accept the case of the prosecution. When the accused examined himself as DW.1, did not state that the allegation of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution is incorrect, the prosecution case has to be accepted. 11. In the circumstances, evidence of PWs.1 and 2 can be accepted straightaway. Thus, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal, as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Hence, conviction of the petitioner passed by the Courts below is confirmed. 12. However, considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the offence has taken place in 1998, sentence of imprisonment of the accused can be reduced. Therefore, sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year of the petitioner is reduced to one month while confirming the fine with default sentence. If the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment, if any, the same shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J July 1, 2010. PV