HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1070 OF 2004 DATED 30th JUNE, 2010. BETWEEN B.Venkateswarlu …..Petitioner/Accused and The State of AP, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor …Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1070 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. is ﬁled aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.6.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2001 by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, conﬁrming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/Accused for the oﬀence punishable under Section 406 IPC in the order dated 13.6.2001 in C.C.No. 34 of 2000 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, Mahaboonagar District.. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.4.1996 the petitioner/accused had availed loan of Rs.47,500/- from the State Bank of Hyderabad under PMRY scheme for installing Kirana and General stores under the name and style of Padma Priya Kirana and General Stores in Rajeev Marg, Gadwal. Subsequently, the accused closed the shop and did not repay the loan amount. Thereby the accused cheated the bank by way of misappropriation. L.W.1 gave a complaint to the police. Based on the same, the police registered a case in Crime No. 111 of 1999 under Section 406 IPC and investigated into. After ﬁling the charge sheet, the trial Court took the cognisance of the case on ﬁle for the oﬀence under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner/accused. The trial Court on a full-ﬂedged trial and appreciation of the evidence on record found the accused guilty of the oﬀence punishable under Section 406 IPC, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 1 ½ year and to pay ﬁne of Rs.200/-, in default to suﬀer S.I. for one month. On an appeal being Criminal Appeal. No. 84 of 2001 preferred by the petitioner/accused, the lower Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal conﬁrming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Hence this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution does not establish the oﬀence against the petitioner under Section 406 IPC. This Court perused the entire record and also evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is a case wherein the petitioner had availed loan of Rs.47,500/- from the State of Bank of Hyderabad under PMRY scheme for the establishment of Kirana and General Store and even according to the prosecution, he has opened the shop and ran the shop for some time. Subsequently, he closed the said shop as he failed to maintain the shop in good proﬁts and hence failed to repay the loan amount, for which, the above said case was registered against him and was convicted. This Court is unable to understand as to why the lower Courts convicted the petitioner/accused when it is clear that the petitioner availed the loan for establishment of kirana shop, opened the same in the name and style of Padma Priya Kirana and General Store and continued for some time and subsequently closed the same when he was not able to run the said shop and therefore failed to repay the loan amount. The same cannot be said to be criminal breach of trust. Mere non payment of loan by a person shall not attract the offence under Section 406 IPC. Hence this Court is of the view that the judgments of both the Courts below need interference by this Court in the present revision and liable to be set aside. For the foregoing reason, the judgment of the lower appellate Court, conﬁrming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is set aside and the accused/petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 406 IPC. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 30th JUNE, 2010. Msnr.