THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1450 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The state filed this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 17.01.2004 passed in CC. No.75 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder Accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468 and 417 of IPC. The brief facts of the case are as follows: One J.S.Titus (Lw.1) had let out a room in her building to Accused Nos.1 to 3, for the purpose of running a medical shop in the name and style ‘Lakshmi Dharani Medicals’, on condition that they should vacate the room whenever she demands. Lw.1 gave a declaration on 21.08.1992 that she had let out a room to Lakshmi Dharani Medicals, but she did not execute any rental agreement in favour of the accused. However, after some period, when Lw.1 asked the accused to vacate the room, Accused No.2 filed O.S.No.44 of 1998 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against Lws.1 and 2, and obtained injunction against Lws.1 and 2 and the said suit is pending. On enquiry by Lw.1, it was found that Accused No.1 forged a document on a stamp paper purporting to be rental agreement executed by her in favour of Accused No.1 and produced Photostat copy of it before the Drug Inspector. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also forged another document purporting to be rental letter addressed by Lw.1 to the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Kadapa, that she had let out a room in favour of the accused, and on the basis of this forged document, Accused No.2 obtained registration certificate from the Sales Tax authorities. Accused No.2 has no licence to run medical shop. On the basis of a private complaint lodged by Lw.1, criminal law was set into motion, and it has been culminated into filing of the charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and numbering the case as CC.No.75 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21. On behalf of defence, none were examined, but got marked Exs.D1 to D4. On consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the accusations made against the accused and, accordingly, by judgment dated 17.01.2004, acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged. Assailing the same, the state filed the present criminal appeal. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. To bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents, the prosecution, in all, examined Exs.P1 to P6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21. Pw.1 is the defacto complainant, at whose instance the criminal law was set into motion. Pw.2 is the Scientific Assistant, F.S.L., Hyderabad, Pw.3 is the Drugs Inspector, Hyderabad, Pw.4 is the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Pw.5 is the Commercial Tax Officer and Pw.6 is the investigating officer, who, after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. The point that came up for determination before the Court below is as to whether the documents marked as Exs.P7 and P8 i.e., rental letter and the Photostat copy of the stamp paper purporting to be the rental agreement are genuine or that they are forged by the accused/respondents. The trial Court, having considered the entire evidence brought on record and also the fact that the suit in O.S.No.44 of 1998 is pending, came to the conclusion that the entire transaction between the parties is civil in nature and does not attract criminal liability and, accordingly, acquitted the accused/respondents herein for the offences for which they were charged. Thus, I find no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 08.12.2010 v v