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.

JUDGMENT :

(V. SRINIVAS, J.)

Assailing the judgment dated 29.12.2015 in Crl.A.No.300 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the judgment dated 18.07.2011 in C.C.No.1529 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class at Kakinada, for the offences under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC ”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code , 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 05.01.2016 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide order in Crl.R.C.MP.No.81 of 2016.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

i). On one day in the month of March 2007, the accused deceived P.Ws.1 and 2, made them to believe that if they arranged Rs.3,00,000/- each for visa and passport expenses, he would provide suitable jobs to them at Kuwait. Then P.Ws.1, 2 and one Patnala Veerraju gave cash of Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused at the house of P.W.5 in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 on the promise that he (accused) would obtained Visa and Passport on or before 25^th April and sent them to Kuwait by providing suitable jobs. But, the accused cheated them with a false promise and failed to return their money.

iv). Basing on the report of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.7-S.I. of Police, II Town (Law & Order) Police Station at Kakinada, registered a case in Cr.No.175 of 2007 under Section420 of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.8-Inspector of Police laid charge sheet against the accused and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.1529 of 2008 on the file of Court of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 420 of IPC , vide judgment dated 18.07.2011, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of four (4) months.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.300 of 2011, before the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 29.12.2015, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

7. Heard Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel representing Sri P. Durgaprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Miss P. Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?”

9. Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel representing Sri P.Durgaprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 8 is inconsistent and not corroborating with each other; that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is interested in nature; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner for the said offence and the same is liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra, Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P.2 receipt categorically proved the offence committed by the accused; that on perusal of Ex.P.2 receipt, the same was issued by the accused by affixing his thumb impression, which is not in dispute; that as per the testimony of P.W.6, he is the scribe of Ex.P.2; that in the presence of P.Ws.3 to 5, accused received the amount from P.Ws.1 and 2 with a false p