Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Sri Justice V Srinivas, J
Meesala Tata Rao, W.G. Dist – Appellant
Versus
P.P. Hyd – Respondent
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 ob
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.
Conviction for cheating under Section 420 IPC upheld as evidence proved deceitful intent; sentence modified due to age of defendants.
High Courts should not interfere with lower court findings in the absence of evidential perversity.
The court upheld the conviction for fraud under IPC sections 468, 471, and 420, affirming that the prosecution proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
For a conviction under section 420 IPC, clear evidence of deception and dishonest intention is required, which was not established in this case.
The concurrent findings by trial and appellate courts affirm the conviction under counterfeit currency charges, with modifications to sentences based on elapsed time and the health of the accused.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
