IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Patan Jelani Khan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 1135 of 2008
Decided On : 25-01-2023
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 388 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 420 - Offence of Cheating - Charged - Accused is working as a Messenger in D.T.O. Office (Telecom Department), Ongole and he used to arrange passports and visas for those who intend to go to Gulf countries for employment - It is further alleged that, accused with dishonest means of earning more money informed (LW-2) that his uncle is at Saudi Arabia working as an Engineer in Philippines Company and offered for an electrician in Saudi Arabia and further accused promised (LW-2) that he would send him to Saudi and provide Electrician job at Saudi in his uncle's company and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from (LW-2) for that purpose - Even he could not get food everyday and ultimately with help of some known persons in Saudi Arabia, he survived and ultimately sent a letter to his wife narrating all facts and cheating made by accused - On receipt of letter i.e. on, reported matter to II Town Police Station, Ongole and investigating officer, Station House Officer of Ongole registered report as a case in Crime - Whether judgment, dated in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1998, on file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongle, suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with same? - Held, Court is of considered view that evidence on record amply proves fact that accused with a dishonest intention induced PW-2 to part with a sum of Rs. 47,000/- on pretext of providing employment at Saudi Arabia and believing same, PW-2 paid that amount and accused did not keep up his promise - Accused suggested to PW-1 during cross-examination that her husband did not work at Saudi Arabia - He also got negative answers from PW-2 during cross-examination as if he entered into agreement with somebody and failed to work there - How accused had knowledge of all these facts which were said to be happened at Saudi Arabia, is not explained by him - In Court considered view, evidence adduced by prosecution is convincing and prosecution established essential ingredients of cheating with consistent evidence - Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, Court feel that ends of justice will meet, if sentence is modified by reducing same to 06 (six) months instead of one year - Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1998, on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole and accused in C.C. No. 194 of 1996, on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District, challenging the judgment, dated 04.12.2003 of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereunder the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the judgment, dated 29.05.1998 in C.C. No. 194 of 1996 of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District.
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3. The present petitioner faced charge under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) in C.C. No. 194 of 1996, on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District and he was found guilty and he was convicted and accordingly, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the same, he filed the Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1998 as above which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the same, he filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet in Crime No. 99 of 1994 under Section 420 of I.P.C. of II Town Police Station, Ongole, is as follows:
5. The learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, took the case on file under Section 420 of I.P.C. and issued process for appearance of the accused. On appearance of the accused and after furnishing copies of documents under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure C
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another
The prosecution must prove fraudulent or dishonest inducement, intention to deceive (mens rea), and the case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt in cases of cheating under Section 415 IPC and Section....
The court affirmed that for a conviction under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate elements of fraudulence and dishonest inducement, supported by credible witness testimony.
The court upheld the conviction for cheating under Section 420 IPC, affirming the lower courts' findings and modifying the sentence to six months due to mitigating circumstances.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.