THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.199 of 2005 ORDER: This criminal revision case is filed against the judgment dated 02.02.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad on 25.7.003, was confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.4.1997, the petitioner- accused obtained a loan of Rs.35,000/- under SEEUY Gramodhya Scheme from the Andhra Bank, Vavilala Branch, Karimnagar District to establish footwear making unit and he bought machine to that effect and started footwear making in the house of PW.2 at Vavilala. After sometime, the petitioner sold the machine to a third party without intimating the bank authorities, and his whereabouts were not known to the bank authorities. The bank issued legal notices to the petitioner, but he did not discharge the loan amount. Hence, the bank lodged a complaint before the S.H.O., Jammikunta and the same was registered as Crime No.101/ 97 against the petitioner and after due investigation, charge sheet was laid for the offences under Sections 403 and 420 IPC and a case was taken on file in C.C.No.324 of 1997 by the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.23 were marked. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 4. Taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 420 IPC. That the trial Court on finding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 403 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. That again the trial Court finding petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2003 and the appellate court after re-appreciation of the evidence and on hearing the respective counsel, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the loan transaction is purely a civil nature and as such, the complainant bank ought to have initiated civil proceedings for recovery of the loan amount and instead of doing so, the complainant bank erroneously initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused which are not sustainable under law; that further in the absence of dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner, the courts below erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability though he may be fastened with civil liability. However, the learned Public Prosecutor raised contention in support of impugned order of conviction. 6. The petitioner’s case is that there was no dishonest intention on his part from the inception of the loan transaction and as such, the provisions of Sections 403 and 420 IPC are not attracted. The Manager of the Andhra Bank, Vavilala Branch of Karimnagar, who was examined as PW.1, admitted in his cross-examination in clear terms as to the collateral security for the loan transaction though the nature thereof is not spoken to. It is also admitted by PW.1 that the petitioner-accused initially paid five instalments. It is on record that the petitioner submitted Ex.P.21 letter dated 29.11.1996 to the Manager of the Andhra Bank seeking permission to clear of the outstanding balance of loan amount on instalment basis. However, he was not able to pay the loan amount in instalments. In fact, the loan was sanctioned by the District Industries Centre under Gramodhya Scheme to the petitioner on being selected by the Committee constituted under the said scheme, which is meant for unemployed persons belonging to the weaker Sections. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions raised by either side, this revisional court is of the view that there is considerable force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. As such, this court is convinced that criminal proceedings instead of civil proceedings against the revision petitioner are inappropriate. The complainant bank is at liberty to initiate civil proceedings against the petitioner, if so advised. 9. In the circumstances, the revision petition is allowed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J Dated:19.02.2010 stp