THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.133 of 2006 Date: 26.08.2011 Between: S. Yugander … Petitioner/ A.1 AND The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. … Respondent/ Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.133 of 2006 ORDER: The revision is laid by the first accused (referred to as A.1 hereinafter) in C.C.No.380 of 2000 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On a complaint by the then Administrative Officer, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (PW.3), a case was registered against two accused including A.1. A case was filed before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against A.1 and A.2 for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After due trial, the learned trial Judge found A.2 not guilty of the charges against him. A.1 was found guilty for all the three charges. He was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for a period of two years for the offence u/s.420 IPC. He was also sentenced to R.I. for a period of two years for the offences u/s.468 and 471 IPC. He was furthered sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- on one count for the offence u/s.420 IPC and on another count for the offences u/s.468 and 471 IPC with appropriate default sentences. A.1 was given the benefit of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). It was also directed that the sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently. A.1 assailed the judgment of the conviction before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Through the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.316 of 2004, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions, the sentences of imprisonment and fine, as recorded by the trial Court. Hence, the revision. 2. A very damaging allegation was made against A.1 and A.2. At the relevant time, A.1 was working as an Attender in the unit of City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and was attached to the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. The second accused was working as Record Assistant in the unit of the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. At the relevant time, PW.2 was the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Sri V.V. Raghavan, was one of his illustrious predecessors. Sri Vaman Rao (as his Lordship then was) was a successor of Sri V.V. Raghavan. It is relevant to recall the names of these two officers whose names are dragged into this case. 3. The case of the prosecution is a) PW.1 is a resident of Goutamnagar, part of Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. He has been doing milk business. He is a Graduate. A.1 was one of his neighbour. PW.1 also knew A.2, as A.2 used to visit the house of PW.1 along with A.1. b) In June, 1998, A.1 informed PW.1 that there were vacancies of Record Assistants and Lower Division Clerks (LDC) posts in the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. He offered to secure job for PW.1 as a Record Assistant in the Court within 15 days. Presumably, he received Rs.30,000/- as consideration for securing the job to PW.1 as a Record Assistant in the unit of City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The agreed amount was Rs.60,000/-. The understanding was that PW.1 should pay the balance of Rs.30,000/- after he secured appointment. Accordingly, PW.1 paid Rs.30,000/- as the first instalment to A.1 on 06.06.1998. c) A couple of days thereafter, A.1 went to the house of PW.1 again and offered to secure a job as LDC in the unit of City Civil Courts, Hyderabad for the wife of PW.1. He received Rs.55,000/- as consideration for securing the job for the wife of PW.1. Further, P.V. Narayana, brother-in-law of PW.1 paid Rs.30,000/- to A.1, when A.1 promised to secure job as a Record Assistant to P.V. Narayana. d) The friends of PW.1 became avaricious. All of them hoped that they would secure jobs through A.1. P. Ravinder Rao (PW.5), a cousin of PW.1 paid Rs.30,000/- to A.1 for securing a clerical job in the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. PW.6, a friend of PW.1, paid Rs.55,000/- to A.1 for securing job to him as an LDC in the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. M. Mahendar (not examined), another friend of PW.1 paid Rs.50,000/- (or Rs.30,000/- as the case may be) to A.1 for a job as LDC. One Parvatha Reddy paid Rs.15,000/- to A.1 for securing job as an Attender. Praveen Kumar, yet another friend of PW.1 also paid Rs.50,000/- to A.1 for providing employment to him as LDC in the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Thus, A.1 received money Rs.2,65,000/- in all, from PW.1, PWs.4 to 7 and P.V. Narayana. e) A.1 went on postponing providing employment to the victims for a period of about six months. After repeated demands of PW.1 and the other victims, ultimately, in November 1998, A.1 gave Ex.P.1 photo copy of the proceedings of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, which shows that PW.1 and his brother-in-law, P.V. Narayana were appointed as Record Assistants in the unit of the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. PW.1 went to the City Civil Courts three days after receiving Ex.P.3 with a view to join duty. When he produced Ex.P.1 before the Administrative Officer, City Civil Courts (PW.3), PW.1 was informed that there were no vacancies in the City Civil Courts and that Ex.P.1 was a fake order. f) PW.1 then approached A.1, informed A.1 about the cheating played upon him by A.1 and demanded A.1 to return the monies received by him. A.1 sought time till 23.01.1999 or 25.01.1999 to repay the monies received by A.1. Curiously, the wife of A.1 suggested that an undertaking might be received from A.1 to repay the money. A.1 agreed to execute an undertaking to repay Rs.2,65,000/- received by him. He accordingly executed Ex.P.2, which was attested by one Satyanarayana. However, as A.1 was working as an Attender, he informed that he was executed the letter (bond) as if he received monies from PW.1 and others and that he would repay the same, rather than narrating the true facts, lest his very employment would be in jeopardy. PW.1 agreed for the same. Consequently, Ex.P.2 was executed by A.1. g) A.1, however, failed to abide by the undertaking and failed to repay the money in terms of Ex.P.2. Having been left with no alternative, PW.1 approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and filed a complaint with the Registrar General. The Registrar General in his turn addressed Ex.P.4 letter together with Ex.P.5 complaint of PW.1 to the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The learned PW.2 examined PW.1 and recorded his statement under Ex.P.3. PW.2 found the statement of PW.1 to be correct after PW.2 verified the records. He, consequently, handed over Exs.P.1, 3, 4 and 5 to PW.3 and directed PW.3 to report the matter to police. PW.3 lodged a complaint under Ex.P.6 with police, Mirchowk Police Station. PW.9 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mirchowk Police Station, at the relevant time. On 25.02.2000, he received Ex.P.6 report from PW.3 and issued Ex.P.16 FIR. On 29.02.2000 he arrested A.1 and A.2. A.1 and A.2 made confessional statements in the presence of PW.8 mediator. Thereafter PW.9, PW.8 and the police party visited the houses of A.1 and A.2 and seized photo copies of four appointment orders, a copy of the agreement between A.1 and PW.1 and copy of another agreement that A.1 agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- to Mahendar. The confessional statements of A.1 and A.2 are Exs.P.12 and 13. The seizure reports from the house of A.1 and A.2 are Exs.P.14 and 15. h) This is the case of the prosecution. 4. As already referred to, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. PWs.1, 4 to 7 are the victims. PW.2 is an indirect victim in the sense the signature of his office was forged. As many as 16 exhibits were marked. In the examination u/s.313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution case and claimed that they have defence witnesses. But, neither of the accused chose to examine any witness. However, Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked on behalf of the accused. 5. A.2 was found not guilty. It was found that the case was not made out against A.2. The conviction of A.1 was confirmed by the appellate Court. Sri Y. Radha Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for A.1 strenuously attempted to show that no case was made out against A.1 and that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court recorded conviction, in view of the allegation primarily emenating from the Registrar General and also from the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. He pointed out that Registrar General is usually a very Senior District Judge and that the Chief Judge also is a very Senior District Judge. He contended that when the complaint was filed at the behest of the Chief Judge on the information furnished to the Chief Judge by the Registrar General, the learned trial Judge was prejudiced against A.1 and recorded conviction, albeit no case was made out against A.1. It becomes necessary to examine the evidence in the background of this allegation to determine whether the conclusion reached by the trial Court and the appellate Court was reasonable and justified or was it a perverse finding. 6. PW.1 narrated the entire details in a minute manner. The facts of the prosecution case, as recorded by me are the facts spoken to by PW.1. PWs.4 to PW.7 thoroughly and completely corroborated PW.1. PW.1 alleged that A.1 made a representation to him that A.1 would procure jobs. PWs.1 and 4 to 7 became prays of the inducement of A.1 and parted with monies with the hope of securing employment. 7. As against the case of the prosecution, the defence inter alia contends that A.1 never cheated PW.1 and others, that A.1 owned money to PW.1 and others and that the case was foisted against him by PW.3 who was inimically disposed towards A.1 taking the help of PW.1. This stand at once is disproved. It is not PW.3 who originated the case. It may be recalled that PW.1 claimed that he went to the Administrative Officer of the City Civil Courts and produced Ex.P.1 and that he came to know at that time that he was duped. While so, there is no reaction from PW.3 barring from informing PW.1 that Ex.P.1 appointment order was not a genuine one. If PW.3 was especially inimically disposed towards A.1, PW.3 could have immediately taken PW.1 to appraise PW.2 about the criminal misconduct of A.1. Instead, PW.3 merely informed PW.1 that Ex.P.1 complaint was given. Therefore, there is no evidence that PW.3 was inimically disposed towards A.1 and has created the whole case to wreck vengeance against A.1. Further, he could not have prepared Ex.P.2. It may be recalled that Ex.P.2 undertaking is admitted to be the undertaking executed by A.1. I shall refer to the defence of A.1 as to the circumstances in which Ex.P.2 was executed. Suffice it to notice in this context that A.1 admitted Ex.P.2. Consequently, I was no ground to suspect that the entire case was engineered by PW.3 with the help of PW.1. 8. Further, it is not as though PW.1 is a friend of PW.3. It is also not averred anywhere that PWs.4 to 7 were also friends of PW.3 and that they were deposing falsely to accommodate PW.3. Indeed, the evidence of PWs.1, 4 to 7 deserves to be judged in the usual manner. However, it cannot be suspected that they are the friends of PW.3 and were deposing falsely to accommodate PW.3. 9. It is the case of A.1 that Ex.P.2 was executed in connection with the debt due from A.1 to PW.1 and that PW.1, in connivance with PW.3 took advantage of Ex.P.3 and foisted a false case against A.1. It may be recalled that it is not the case of A.1 that he has enmity with PW.1 or special enmity with PW.1 and PWs.4 to 7. Further, the accused did not choose to examine anyone including A.1 and A.2 to support the stand of A.1 that A.1 owed money to PW.1 and that A.1 executed Ex.P.2 in connection with the money due from him to PW.1 10. One Satyanarayana was the attestor of PW.2. The said Satyanarayana was not examined. The learned counsel for A.1 contended that the non- examination of Satyanarayana would disprove the claim of PW.1. I am afraid that Ex.P.2 speaks for itself. PW.1 explained the circumstances in which Ex.P.2 was executed by A.1. A.1 admitted the execution of Ex.P.2. Where A.1 admitted execution of Ex.P.2 and where PW.1 narrated a story as to the circumstances in which Ex.P.2 was executed, it is for A.1 to disprove the claim of PW.1. Barring for making suggestions to witnesses, A.1 and A.2 did not choose to examine anyone in support of their claim. I, therefore, have no alternative but to hold that the defence of A.1 as to the circumstances in which Ex.P.2 was executed has not proved. 11. Inter alia, Sri Y. Radha Krishna Murthy contended that the prosecution failed to produce the original of Ex.P.1 appointment letter and that the prosecution thus failed to prove the case. It may be recalled that the very case of the prosecution is that the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad did not issue Ex.P.1 appointment order. The question of the prosecution suppressing the original order, therefore, does not arise. PW.1 received Ex.P.1 from A.1. Ex.P.1 itself, therefore, is the original so far as the present case is concerned. Admittedly, Ex.P.1 also suffers from the inherent defect that the proceedings were in the name of Sri Vaman Rao (as his Lordship then was), the then Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hydeabad, while purportedly Ex.P.1 was signed by Sri V.V. Raghavan, the subsequent Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Thus, Ex.P.1 prima facie is a spurious document. At any rate, there is no dispute that Ex.P.1 was not genuine. The question of the prosecution withholding the original, therefore, does not arise. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 also contended that the prosecution did not produce the documents seized under Exs.P.14 and 15. Exs.P.14 and 15 clearly show that the four copies of Ex.P.1 were seized from the houses of A.1 and A.2. When what were seized were merely copies of Ex.P.1, non production of those copies would not alter the result of the case in any manner. 13. Regarding the merits of the case, the evidence of PW.1 that A.1 induced PWs.1, 4 to 7 and others and obtained monies from them, that he gave false appointment letters subsequently under Ex.P.1, that he executed Ex.P.2 undertaking to repay the monies received by him and that he failed to do so, as spoken to PW.1, were completely, thoroughly, and systematically corroborated by PWs.4 to 7. Their story is further fortified by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. The trial Court and the appellate Court, consequently, did not err in concluding that the prosecution has established the guilt of A.1 beyond reasonable doubt. I am also satisfied that the conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is evidently justified, in view of the gravity of the offence. I, therefore, see no merits in this revision. 14. The revision, consequently, is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. If A.1/revision petitioner is not in jail, he shall surrender immediately before the trial Court to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. _________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 26.08. 2011 Isn