IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHT DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1282 & 1283 OF 2004 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1282 OF 2004: Between: Bhattiprolu Sumitranandam ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh ....RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1283 OF 2004: Between: Kadiyam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1282 & 1283 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Revision Cases, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), are directed against the common judgment, dated 30.07.2004, in Crl.A.Nos.81 and 82 of 2003, on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of petitioners/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, recorded in the judgment, dated 07.04.2003, in C.C.No.184 of 2000, on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Cases may be stated as follows: A1 was unemployed Hindi Pandit and A2 was Junior Assistant in Hindi Pandit Section working in Zilla Parishad, Eluru. The District Selection Committee, West Godavari, Eluru, conducted written and oral test for direct recruitment for appointment to the post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II in West Godavari District in the month of March, 1998. A1 had attended the qualifying test, but he had not passed the said test. Later A1 approached A2 through PW.4 and requested him to see that he would be passed as Hindi Pandit in Zilla Parishad Schools and he undertook to pay the necessary amount towards bribe. A2 promised him that he would make necessary arrangements to get selected to the said post and asked him to bring an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, A1 gave an amount of Rs.30,000/- through PW.4 to A2 to get the job. A2 brought into existence a fake appointment order in the name of A1 showing that A1 was appointed as Hindi Pandit Grade-II and he was allotted to the Zilla Parishad High School at Cherukuwada Village of Undi Mandal. It was alleged that A2 fabricated the appointment order by typing the name of A1 and some others in the type institute of one M. Venkateswararao at Eluru. A1 knowing full well that it was a fake appointment order, shown the same to PW.1 as genuine and joined in Zilla Parishad High School, Cherukuwada, as Hindi Pandit Grade-II. PW.1 after coming to know that the appointment order of A1 was a false appointment order and that it was not issued by the Zilla Parishad, he lodged a complaint. Police took up investigation. During the course of investigation, basing on the confession made by A2, they seized the Godrej Type Writer from one M.Vekateswararao, which was used by A2 to fabricate the false appointment orders. It was also confessed by A2 that he collected an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- from A1 and some others in making the false appointment orders. It was further alleged that A2 deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in the name of his father and mother in fixed deposits in the Bank of Baroda at Duddukuru Village, Devarapalli Mandal. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the charge under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C. were framed, read over and explained to both the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. 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 and reported no oral and documentary evidence. 6. The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 coupled with Ex.P-1, found both the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. However, both the accused were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. and were accordingly, acquitted. On appeal, the said convictions and sentences were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present revision cases are filed by the accused. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for both the revision petitioners contended that there is absolutely no evidence to show that A2 fabricated, forged or created appointment order in favour of A1; that receiving of amount through PW.4 is not proved, in view of the fact that PW.4 did not support the case of the prosecution; that the alleged extra judicial confession said to have been given by A2 to PW.5 has not been established, in view of the fact that PW.5 also did not support the case of the prosecution; that the appointment order Ex-P-1 is not shown to be fabricated or created or forged document either by A2 or A1 and used the same as genuine one; that as A1 received the appointment order - Ex-P-1, through post, he tendered the same to PW.1 to enable him to join in the said post; that A1 is innocent; that there is no other evidence insofar as A2 is concerned; that these aspects have not been considered by the trial Court and came to a wrong conclusion; that the findings are not based upon the evidence available on record and hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court against the revision petitioners. 9. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is evidence which would go to show that it is A1 who produced Ex.P-1 - appointment order before PW.1; that later it came to light that Ex.P-1 was not issued by the competent authority; that the post in the school in which A1 has joined has not been filled up; that in view of the fact that no appointment orders were given appointing any person as Hindi Pandit Grade-II in the Zilla Parishad High School, Cherukuwada, it can be inferred that Ex.P-1 was forged document; that knowing full well that A1 has not passed the written test for the post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II, he produced the document and therefore, it is clear that A2 fabricated the document after receipt of money from A1; that A1 used the same as genuine one knowing full well that it is a fabricated one; that both the Courts below gave concurrent findings with regard to the guilt of the accused; that the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record; that there are no grounds to interfere with the same and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision cases. 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 would 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 evidence on record. This Court cannot sit over as if in an appeal so as to re-appreciate the evidence, but to know whether the findings are correct or not, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of PWs.1 and 6 on whose evidence both the Courts completely placed an implicit reliance in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. PW.4, who is working as Hindi Pandit, was examined by the prosecution to show that A1 paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- through him to A2 for the purpose of getting an appointment order. But, he did not support the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile by the prosecution as he was resiling from his earlier statement given by him to the police. Even after cross-examination of this witness by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited to show that A1 paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- through him to A2 for the purpose of getting a job. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. 12. Coming to the evidence of PW.5, he is examined only to show that A2 gave extra judicial confession statement that he fabricated the appointment order in the Type Institute of one M.Vekateswararao and gave it to A1. Though the extra judicial confession is found to be true and correct and can be acted upon, at the same time, PW.5 also did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he was also declared hostile by the prosecution. Nothing has been elicited by the prosecution from his evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 13. PW.1 was the Head Master working in the said School at the relevant point of time of incident. His evidence would go to show that Ex.P-1 was rendered to him by A1 on 19.08.1998, which was a similar order copy already received by them. Ex.P-1 is the letter of appointment of A1. As per Ex.P-1, he permitted A1 to join the school. A1 attended the school for four days and had not attended thereafter. He had sent a telegram stating that he was suffering with viral fever. On 28.08.1998, they received a letter from C.E.O. stating that they have not appointed any candidate in any cadre to their school. Then he produced Ex.P-1 along with the copy received by him through post before the C.E.O. The C.E.O. verified the same and stated that the signatures on Ex.P-1 and the copy received by them from his office, belong to him. The C.E.O. also verified the office records and stated that there is no such appointment order in their office in the name of A1 and directed PW.1 to lodge a report in Undi Police Station. Therefore, under the directions of PW.6, PW.1 lodged Ex.P-3 - Report. Even this witness did not say that Ex.P-1 was fabricated, created or forged by A2, since Ex.P-1 - appointment order was produced by A1. If Ex.P-1 is fabricated, created or forged document, an inference can be drawn that it was likely to be created in all probability by A1. Therefore, there must be evidence to show that Ex.P-1 was a fabricated or created or forged document. PW.6 is the proper person to speak about the forgery of Ex.P-1 document. Though he stated that no appointment order was given in the name of Bhattiprolu Sumitranandam (A1) appointing him to the post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II and allotting the candidate to the school of PW.1, he admitted that the signature in Ex.P-1 is that of him, which is a stencil cut. He did not say that the contents of Ex.P-1 are fabricated or created or forged either by A1 or A2. Admittedly, he is also the accused in the case filed by police under Section 420 I.P.C. on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalpudi, which was pending for trial. 14. Insofar as A2 is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence to show that he fabricated or created or forged the document - Ex.P-1 though he is working as a Senior Assistant in Hindi Pandit Section of Zilla Parishad, Eluru. PW.6 admitted that A2 has not prepared either typing orders or stencil cut orders and he was not authorized to issue orders or papers to the concerned authorities. Though it is in the evidence that Ex.P-1 was fabricated in the type institute of one M.Venkateswararao, but he is not examined as a witness and that the Type Writer on which Ex.P-1 was typed, though seized has not been marked as exhibit and produced before the Court. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence insofar as A2 is concerned. Hence, he is entitled for acquittal. 15. Insofar as A1 is concerned it is not shown that Ex.P-1 was forged or fabricated one and knowing full well that Ex.P-1 is forged one, he used the same as genuine so as to get the appointment from competent authority appointing as grade-II Hindi Pandit in the Zilla Parishad School, in which PW.1 was Head Master. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that he gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to A2 through PW.4 and that A2 in turn deposited the same in the name of his parents. Therefore, the findings are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court against the petitioners are liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 30.07.2004, in Crl.A.Nos.81 and 82 of 2003, on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Visakhapatnam. The petitioners/A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C. and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same. Bail bonds of the petitioners/A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be returned to them. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 08, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1282 & 1283 OF 2004 July 08, 2010