THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 169 of 2009 ORDER: The accused in C.C.No.1093 of 2004 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, who was convicted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each, the said conviction and sentences have been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2008 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is the revision petitioner herein. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused went to the shop of P.W.1 and took delivery of two laptop computers and issued a demand draft drawn on Global Trust Bank. According to the case of prosecution, the accused on 10.09.2003 called P.W.1 from his mobile No.98482 60827, thereafter came on 11.09.2003 and having presented the demand draft for Rs.2,28,800/-, took delivery of two laptop computers. When the demand draft was presented, it was dishonoured, as it was said to be a forged one, after the demand drafts were stolen from the Global Trust Bank. On a complaint given by P.W.1, the case was registered and investigated into and during the course of investigation, the accused is said to have been apprehended on 23.09.2003, whereunder the accused is said to have given a confessional statement relating to this case and other cases before P.W.5 and thereafter the charge sheet has been laid after seizing all the properties. The accused denied the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC framed against him. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and M.Os.1 and 2. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the above offences and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, which were confirmed in the appeal. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the accused has presented the forged and fabricated demand draft and obtained delivery of two laptop computers from P.W.1 and thereby cheated P.W.1? 2. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower Court is legal and sustainable? POINTS: So far as the offence concerning this case is concerned, except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is about arrest of the accused and seizure of the property and they do not support the prosecution case and declared them as hostile. So far as the evidence of P.W.4 is concerned, he is said to have apprehended the accused at Kolanupaka and thereafter produced before P.W.5 and the evidence of P.W.5 is about the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property concerning this case and also in other cases as per the confession of the accused. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the other cases are ended in acquittal and according to the evidence of the prosecution there is inconsistency with regard to the arrest of the accused. According to him, the evidence of P.W.4 shows that as if the accused was arrested at Kolanupaka, whereas the evidence of P.W.5 shows that he was detained in the police station at General Bazaar, Secunderabad and, therefore, the arrest and seizure cannot be believed. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted as the evidence of P.W.4 goes to show that when the accused was apprehended, he had escaped and thereafter he was apprehended at Kolanupaka and produced before P.W.5, who recorded the confessional statement. It is not the evidence of P.W.4 that he has recorded the confessional statement of the accused and recovered any of the properties. Therefore, there are no two arrests or two recoveries as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. So far as the prosecution of the accused in other cases in pursuance of his confessional statement is concerned, it has no relevancy for prosecution in this case. The Court is only concerned about the offence of the accused whether the accused has, by cheating, made P.W.1 to deliver two laptop computers and presented an invalid and fabricated demand draft drawn on Global Trust Bank. Therefore, if the evidence of P.W.1 about the accused coming to his shop and obtaining the delivery of two laptop computers after presentation of Ex.P-2 demand draft, is believed, then the further question of seizure of the property or non-seizure of the property has no relevancy. In fact, it is the evidence of P.W.1 clearly mentioning that the accused came to his shop and he delivered two laptop computers and the accused is the person, who has given the demand draft Ex.P-2. In fact, in the cross-examination of P.W.1, there is nothing substantial to discredit his testimony as to what was the need for him to implicate the accused at the instance of the police, if he is not really the victim of the accused. In fact the demand draft was drawn in the name of the company, which is said to have run by P.W.1. Therefore, from the above circumstances, it is quite clear that the accused by presenting a forged demand draft, has obtained delivery of two laptop computers from P.W.1. Even if for a moment, the recovery of the computers from the possession of the accused is to be not there, still the fact remains that only for the purpose of the computers the demand draft has been given, which has been dishonoured and the offence under Section 420 of IPC is complete and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. It is true that there is no evidence that the accused himself has forged the demand draft, as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, to attract an offence under Section 468 of IPC against him. But, it is quite clear that the accused has no account in the Global Trust Bank and that bank has not issued the demand draft, the accused has presented Ex.P-2 demand draft to P.W.1, which has been found to be not a genuine one. Therefore, under Section 471 of IPC, an offence against the revision petitioner-accused is squarely made out. Therefore, for the above reasons, I do not find any infirmity by the Courts below in accepting the evidence of P.W.1 about the act of cheating committed by the accused by presenting a fabricated demand draft and consequently the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC is sustainable and the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 468 of IPC is liable to be set aside. Since the accused appears to be a habitual offender and involved in several cases, as can be seen from the record, it is not even a case showing any mercy or leniency in reducing the sentences imposed by the lower Court for the above offences. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed while confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offences under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC. The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 468 of IPC. The lower Court is directed to take steps for apprehension of the accused to serve the remaining sentence. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 29-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 169 of 2009 DATE: 29-11-2011 MR