IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2006. Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. … Appellant-complainant V/s. Rednam Veeravenkata Prasad & 19-Ors. … Respondents-Accused Counsel for the Appellant : Addl.Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents : Sri C.Praveen Kumar The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page). THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2006 JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 29-3-2004 passed in CC.No. 208 of 2001 by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences under sections 406, 506, 420 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the State preferred the present criminal appeal. 3. Heard the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State and the learned counsel for the respondents-accused. 4. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that PW-1 is the father of A-1 and A-2 is the wife of A-1. Pw-1 purchased some shares in TISCO, TELCO, TATA CHEMICALS, TATA TEA, RELIANCE, VIDEOCON etc. He was doing business in shares and he was also having salt business. He did the business till 1992. After the death of his wife in the year 1992, PW-1 stopped the business and entrusted the same to A-1. He did business with A-1 and A-2 in the house at Rajendranagar. A-1 used to lookafter the business of PW-1. A-1 used to go to Naupada for inspection of the salt business and the head office is situated at Visakhapatnam. Apart from the business in shares and salt, A-1 was doing business in the name and st7le of Eswar Builders in the year 1994. It is said that PW-1 was in the habit of entrusting his share certificates to A-1 to mortgage them and to obtain loans. 5. Some time thereafter disputes arose between the family members and PW-1 left the house of A-1 and A-2 and started living with another son and daughter. The root cause of the dispute was said to be that originally PW-1 executed a will in respect of the house property in favour of A-1 but subsequently cancelled the same and settled the property in favour of his daughter. 6. On 28-12-1999 PW-1 presented Ex.P-1 report in IV-Town Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam stating that A-1 sold away the shares of PW-1 without his consent, that A-1 threatened him to file a criminal case under section 498-A of IPC against him and his elder daughter through his wife A-2 and also that A-1 cheated PW-1 and misappropriated the amounts by selling the share certificates having conspired with the remaining accused. Basing on his report, PW-7 the Sub- Inspector of Police registered a case under section 406, 420 and 506 of IPC. He investigated into the offence and filed charge sheet. 7. In the course of trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the respondents-accused examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-133. The respondents- accused did not propose to examine the defence witnesses. 8. The entire case rested on the evidence of PW-1, the father of A-1 and PW-7 the Investigating Officer in the case. There was no document evidencing the entrustment of shares of PW-1 to A-1. Except the oral testimony of PW-1 there is no document to show that PW-1 entrusted the share certificates to A-1 to mortgage them and obtain loan. Unless the D.D. forms are signed by the shareholder, they can not be sold or transferred. The version of PW-1 regarding the entrustment of the share certificates to A-1 is totally inconsistent. At one time he states that he entrusted the DD forms after signing them to A-1 with a direction to mortgage them and obtain loan but A-1 having conspired with the remaining accused sold away the said shares. To the contrary, he states that A-1 and A-2 committed theft of signed DD forms and the share certificates. The learned trial Court therefore rightly disbelieved the version of PW-1 regarding the manner in which the share certificates and DD forms were passed on to A-1. 9. Regarding the offence of A-1 intimidating PW-1 which is punishable under section 506 of IPC except the oral testimony of PW-1 there is no other evidence. Further though another daughter and son of PW- 1 were cited as witnesses, they were not examined by the prosecution and on account of non-examination, adverse inference can be drawn against the case of the prosecution. Further the admission of PW-1 in the cross- examination of PW-1 is that he voluntarily signed on DD forms due to faith on A-1 and this admission goes to falsify the very allegation that A-1 and his wife committed theft of share certificates of PW-1. The allegation of commission of theft of share certificates and entrustment of share certificates are mutually inconsistent, and therefore, it is not possible to place reliance on the evidence of PW-1. When there is entrustment of the share certificates to A-1 for any purpose, there is no possibility for alleging that A-1 and A-2 committed theft of the share certificates. 10. The only evidence, which was placed on record, is that production of certain documents seized by the Investigation Officer relating to the bank transactions of some of the accused. Those transactions do not indicate that they pertain to the disposal of the share certificates belonging to PW-1. 11. Moreover, in view of the family disputes between PW-1 and A1, there is every likelihood of PW-1 trying to falsely implicate A-1 in this case. Except the oral testimony of PW-1, there is no documentary evidence or other corroborating evidence to support the evidence of PW-1. PW-1 failed to establish the entrustment of the property i.e., share certificates to A-1 and in the absence of any entrustment, it cannot be said that the act of misappropriation has been committed by A-1. There is no material to show that PW-1 was induced by A-1 or any of the accused to part with the share certificates. Therefore, the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC is also not attracted. 12. The learned trial Court considering the evidence of PW-1 as untrustworthy and there being no other evidence supporting his version, held that the respondents-accused are not liable for conviction for any of the offences. In an appeal against the acquittal, this court will interfere only when the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse or not based on evidence. In the instant case, the findings recorded by the trial Court are not perverse or extraneous to the material available on record. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court against the respondents-accused for the offences under section 406, 506, 420 and 120-B of IPC is confirmed. The appeal against the acquittal preferred by the State is dismissed. --------------------------------------- JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO. 27-08-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2006 CIRCULATION No. 22 Date: 27-08-2011 COURT MASTER : I s L Computer No. 43