SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 170

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N. Ravi Prasad.

Headnote:

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:

    The 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, the accused with dishonest means of earning more money informed Patan Rasheed Khan (LW-2) that his uncle is at Saudi Arabia working as an Engineer in the Philippines Company and offered for an electrician in Saudi Arabia and further the accused promised Patan Rasheed Khan (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 Patan Rasheed Khan (LW-2) for that purpose. Believing the false and deceitful words of the accused, Patan Rasheed Khan (LW-2) gave Rs. 47,000/- to the accused in the presence of Patan Mehataj Begum, Shaik Mohiddin Saheb, Shaik Ismail Baig, Shaik Abdulwahab (LW-1, LW-3 to LW-5) for providing employment in Saudi Arabia along with some other persons who are also cheated by the accused. Patan Rasheed Khan (LW-2) was sent Saudi Arabia without any employment there. Patan Rasheed Khan searched for the address which was given to him by the accused and found that the address given by the accused is false and Patan Rasheed Khan suffered a lot at Saudi Arabia and faced lot of troubles. Even he could not get food everyday and ultimately with the help of some known persons in Saudi Arabia, he survived and ultimately sent a letter to his wife narrating all the facts and the cheating made by the accused. On receipt of the letter i.e. on 05.08.1994 at 10-00 hours, Patan Mehataj Begum reported the matter to II Town Police Station, Ongole and the investigating officer, Station House Officer of Ongole registered the report as a case in Crime No. 99 of 1994 under Section 420 of I.P.C. and investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, G. Ramakoteswara Rao (LW-7), Station House Officer, arrested the accused and produced before the Court for remand and examined Patan Mehataj Begum, Patan Rasheed Khan, Shaik Mohiddin Saheb, Shaik Ismail Baig, Shaik Abdul Waheb (LWs. 1 to 5) and recorded their statements. Hence, the charge-sheet.

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

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top