IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, J.
A.Narsing Rao - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1391, 1572 and 1382 of 2017
Decided On : 22-03-2024
JUDGMENT
K. Lakshman, J. - Heard Mr. Nageshwara Rao Pappu, learned senior counsel for appellant - accused No.1 in Crl.A. No.1391 of 2017, Mr. E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel for appellant - accused No.4 in Crl.A. No.1382 of 2017, Mrs. N. Sasikala, learned counsel for the appellant -accused No.3 in Crl.A. No.1572 of 2017 and Mrs. S. Anandi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of respondent.
2. Criminal Appeal No.1391 of 2017 is filed by accused No.1 challenging the judgment dated 15.11.2017 in C.C. No.33 of 2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, while Criminal Appeal No.1382 of 2017 is filed by accused No.4 and Criminal Appeal No.1572 of 2017 is filed by accused No.3 challenging the very same judgment.
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, dated 11.11.2017, the trial Court found the appellants - accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 guilty of the charge under Section - 120B of IPC. Apart from the above charge, the appellant - accused No.1 was also found guilty of the charges under Section - 409 and Section - 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'Act, 1988'), accused No.3 was found guilty of the charge under Section - 411 of IPC and accused No.4 was found guilty of the charges under Sections - 420, 420 read with 511, 471 and 471 read with 511 of IPC and accordingly imposed respective sentences of imprisonment in the following manner:
i) Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (07) days each for the charge under Section - 120B of IPC.
ii) Accused No.1 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the charge under Section - 409 of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (07) days for the charge under Section - 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act, 1988.
iii) Accused No.3 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the charge under Section - 411 of IPC.
iv) Accused No.4 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the charge under Section - 420 of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the charge under Section - 420 read with 511 of IPC on two counts. He was also sentenced to undergo for a period of five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the charge under Section - 471 of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the charge under Section - 471 read with 511 of IPC on two counts.
4. The case of the prosecution is as under:
i) In pursuance of a criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 6, eighteen (18) Demand Draft (DD) Forms were stealthily removed from the safe custody of State Bank of Hyderabad (SB
Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar
Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa (1991) 3 SCC 27
Dr. Lakshman v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 9 SCC 677 and Archana Rana v. State of U.P.
Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab
Bhagwan Kaur v. Maharaj Krishan Sharma
Major S.K. Kale v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1977 SC 822]
Major S.K. Kale v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1977 SC 822]
Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal
Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam
S.P. Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra
State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
Sadupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2012) 8 SCC 547
Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration)
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
Procedural irregularities in criminal trials can result in quashing convictions if fair trial principles are violated.
Conviction for forgery and misappropriation requires clear proof of entrustment and intent to defraud, which was lacking, leading to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge and intent in theft cases. Lack of evidence regarding the accused's knowledge of the stolen property can lead to acquittal.
Public servants found guilty of misappropriating funds by fabricating documents in a criminal conspiracy, invoking sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
The prosecution must prove entrustment and dishonest intent in offenses under sections 409 and 468 IPC, failure of which leads to acquittal.
Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, leave the....
(1) Sanction for prosecution of public servant – There must be reasonable connection between the act and discharge of official duty.(2) Conviction based upon such a person who is unworthy of credit, ....
(1) Cheating and forgery – Weakness in defence or failure of accused to substantiate the fact while answering question in his accused statement cannot become strength of prosecution – Prosecution has....
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.