IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTY DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1736 OF 2003 Between: G. Christopher Jayakumar ..... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused No.3 AND The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 12.11.2003, in Crl.A.No.163 of 2003, on the file of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the conviction recorded by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide judgment, dated 17.03.2003, in C.C.No.154 of 1996 was confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment was modified by reducing it from Rigorous Imprisonment for three years to Simple Imprisonment for one year, while confirming the fine and default sentence. 2. None appears inspite of posting the matter under the caption "for dismissal" to today from 03.11.2009. 3. This Criminal Revision Case is squarely covered by the order, dated 25.07.2008, passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1726 of 2003. Accused No.1 filed the said Criminal Revision Case challenging the common judgment, dated 12.11.2003, in Crl.A.No.150 of 2003, passed by the Appellate Court. Now the present Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the very self-same judgment by Accused No.3. 4. This Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that all the accused had a common intention of committing the offence of cheating and for that, they induced the prosecution witnesses and received the most from them and accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case filed by Accused No.1 was dismissed. 5. The evidence and the allegations against the present petitioner, who is Accused No.3, are also the same. The evidence of P.Ws.6 & 7 would go to show that the present petitioner, along with others, promised P.Ws.6 & 7 to send them to Kuwait for employment as Ward Boys and Computer Operators and also promised them that they would provide visas for Kuwait and asked them to pay Rs.17,000/- for visa. Accordingly, P.Ws.6 & 7 paid certain amounts to Accused Nos.3 & 4. Then, Accused Nos.3 & 4 informed them to come after 20 days to collect the visas. P.Ws.6 & 7 approached the present petitioner and others several times, but they did not provide any visas and did not return the amounts. As a matter of fact, they were postponing the matter on different reasons. 6. Similarly, P.Ws.8 & 10 also stated that Accused Nos.2 & 3 made a promise that they will provide jobs in Arab countries, i.e., in Kuwait and asked them to pay Rs.30,000/-. As a matter of fact, P.W.8 paid Rs.15,000/- towards advance. Whereas, P.W.10 paid Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, this Court gave a finding that from the prosecution evidence, it is established that all the accused had a common intention of cheating by inducing the prosecution witnesses to deliver the amounts with a false promise of sending them to Kuwait for employment. 7. Making a false promise with a dishonest or fraudulent intention of cheating the victims, amounts to cheating. The dishonest or fraudulent intention of the present petitioner is that he along with some other accused persuaded the prosecution witnesses to pay certain amounts to them so that they would send them to Kuwait for providing a job. That promise has not been fulfilled. Mere breach of promise by itself may not give raise to a criminal prosecution but when a fraudulent or dishonest intention was entertained by the accused at the time of making promise or agreement, then certainly it can be said that they committed an offence punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 I.P.C. None of the finding is shown to be incorrect or perverse or illegal. In the absence of any illegality, the impugned judgment needs no interference. Further more, the said judgment in respect of Accused No.1 has been confirmed by this Court. There is no other reason to deviate from the findings given in Crl.R.C.No.1726 of 2003, dated 25.07.2008, of this Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 12.11.2003, in Crl.A.No.163 of 2003, on the file of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Date: 6th November, 2009. KL