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.

JUDGMENT :

(V. SRINIVAS, J.)

Assailing the judgment dated 25.07.2018 in Crl.A.No.326 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the judgment dated 24.11.2016 in C.C.No.251 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class at Machilipatnam, for the offences under Section 468, 471 and 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 26.07.2018 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in I.A.No.1 of 2018.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that :

i). On 11.05.2005, the accused submitted a loan application under SC unemployment scheme with surety certificates and quotation of Padmaja Commercial Corporation at MPDO office, Nagayalanka to the SC Corporation, through MPDO, Nagayalanka. Later the loan was sanctioned to the accused on 11.07.2005 and issued D.No.299109, dated 16.08.2005 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 19.08.2005 in favour of Padmaja Commercial Corporation.

ii). On 02.09.2005, the said Padmaja Commercial Corporation delivered the car (Taxi) to the accused. As per the scheme, he has to pay the amount of Rs.2,75,000/-, but he did not pay the same to the society. Later, they calculated the total amount to be paid by the accused with interest is at Rs.3,16,860/- and issued notices to the accused.

iii). In the month of April 2012, P.W.1 deputed P.W.2 to enquire the surety holders. On enquiry of P.W.2, P.W.5 who said to be guarantor, denied her signature on the loan application of accused and informed that her signature was forged. Another surety person by name gorumuchu Samuel was died on 25.03.2010. Even receipt of several notices from the Corporation, the accused kept quiet.

iv). Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.8-Head Constable Chilakalapudi Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.156 of 2016 under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, S.I. of Police laid charge sheet against the accused and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.251 of 2013 on the file of Court of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Machilipatnam, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, vide judgment dated 24.11.2016, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of fifteen (15) days, for the respective offences. All the sentences imposed against the accused shall run concurrently. However, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 406 of IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.326 of 2016, before the Court of learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 25.07.2018, 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 D.S.N.V.Prasad Babu, 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 D.S.N.V.Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the p