HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Criminal Revision Case Nos.1507 and 1508 of 2003 DATE:16.04.2010 Crl.R.C.No.1507 of 2003: Between: D.S. Prasad … Petitioner/A.3 and The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad … Respondent Crl.R.C.No.1508 of 2003: Between: Mylavarapu Ramalingam @ Ramam and another … Petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 and The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Criminal Revision Case Nos.1507 and 1508 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two revisions are directed against the conviction and sentence recorded against accused Nos.1 to 3 by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, in judgment dated 27.03.2002, in C.C.No.113 of 1997, as confirmed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, by common judgment dated 29.09.2003 in Crl.A.Nos.94 and 95 of 2002. As both the revisions are inter-connected, they are disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that A.1 and A.2 are brothers and residents of Kakinada. A.1 is a Commerce Graduate and worked for some time as Sub Organiser in Peerless General Finance and Investments Private Limited, Kakinada, whereas A.2 worked for some time as a Medical Representative. Because of their experience in share market and finance business, both of them gave up their respective jobs and prepared a plan to earn money easily from innocent citizens of Kakinada. In that context, they established a finance company in the name and style “Lakshmi Chits and Finance and Sri Lakshmi Share Consultancy” at Kakinada and employed A.3 as a representative to receive money from public. A.1 and A.2 invited deposits from innocent public by promising them that they would double the deposited amount after six months. The innocent public got attracted to the said promise and deposited huge amounts to a tune of Rs.26,23,500/- hoping that the amount so deposited by them would be doubled within a span of six months. When the amounts were not paid as promised, the depositors approached the Sub Inspector of Police and gave a common report on 16.09.1996 against the accused and the same was registered as Crime No.170 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the competent criminal court. Originally, charge sheet was filed against A.1 and A.2 only. Subsequently, A.3 to A.5 were added. 4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 48 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.136 were marked. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined, but Exs.D.1 to D.33 were marked. On a careful consideration of both oral and documentary evidence and having heard both sides, the learned Magistrate found A.4 and A.5 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, and accordingly, acquitted them of the same, but found A.1 to A.3 guilty of the said offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each, by judgment dated 27.03.2002. As against the said judgment, while A.1 and A.2 preferred Crl.A.No.94 of 2002, A.3 preferred Crl.A.No.95 of 2002 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada. The learned Sessions Judge, dismissed both the appeals, by common judgment dated 29.09.2003. Aggrieved by the same, while A.3 filed Crl.R.C.No.1507, A.1 and A.2 filed Crl.R.C.No.1508 of 2003 before this Court. 5. Heard both sides. 6. As seen from the documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 47, it is clear that A.1 and A.2 have entertained a dishonest intention at the threshold i.e. while establishing the finance company. It is not as though they did not have the said dishonest intention at the inception and thereafter because of certain circumstances they could not pay the amounts received from the depositors i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 47. The promise made by A.1 and A.2 itself is a falsity. If a person pays Rs.100/-, in my considered view, it cannot be doubled within a span of six months, unless there is fraud. The said promise, when itself is a falsity, it can definitely be said that A.1 and A.2 have floated the said company with a dishonest intention. Hence, it can safely be concluded that the act committed by A.1 and A.2 clearly attracts the provisions of Section 417 IPC. Hence, this Court is of the view that the courts below have rightly concluded that A.1 and A.2 are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, and the said finding does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. In so far as the conviction and sentence imposed against A.3 are concerned, in my considered view, it cannot be said that A.3 also entertained the said dishonest intention. After all, he was employed by A.1 and A.2 to collect monies from the depositors and as directed by A.1 and A.2, he collected monies from the depositors. The said act cannot be said to have been done by A.3 with any dishonest intention, as he was simply complying with the orders of his masters. Hence, this Court is of the view that A.3 is entitled for acquittal. 8. In the result, Crl.R.C.No.1507 of 2003 filed by A.3 is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the trial court, as confirmed by the lower appellate court, are hereby set aside. Consequently, A.3 is acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 420 IPC. The fine amount, if any, paid by A.3 shall be refunded to him. Crl.R.C.No.1508 of 2003 filed by A.1 and A.2 is dismissed. 9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for A.1 and A.2 has submitted that A.1 had undergone two bypass surgeries and A.2 has to perform his daughter’s marriage and requested this Court to take a lenient view in the matter. Taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel and also the fact that the offence took place in the year 1996, this Court reduces the sentence of three years imprisonment imposed by the trial court against A.1 and A.2 to two (2) years imprisonment. With regard to A.1 and A.2, the judgment of the trial court in all other aspects is confirmed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 16th April, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Criminal Revision Case Nos.1507 and 1508 of 2003 16th April, 2010 CBS