APHC010469792009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 176/2009 Between:

1. A DDURI VEERABHADRA RAO,, S/O. NARAYANA RAO, EMPLOYEE IN RAILWAYS, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. Y ERRAMSETTI SAMBASIVA RAO AND 2 OTHERS, S/O. SRI VENKATESWARA RAO, TAX TAILOR, MAIN ROAD , RAJAHMUNDRY, R/O. SAI SRI APARTMENTS, KANAKATALA STREET, T.NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY.

2. Y ARRAMSETTI GOWRI SANKAR, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, TAILOR , JAGADAMBA CENTER, R/O. H.NO. 13-11-1, VISAKHAPATNAM.

3. S TATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case before this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No. 235 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, dated 10.7.2008 preferred against the judgment made in CC.No. 4 of 2003, dated 07.11.2003 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry.

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1925 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the Original Copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.4 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, dated 07.11.2003.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P VIJAYA KUMARI

2. D SANGEETHA REDDY 3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 176 OF 2009

ORDER:

Respondents were arrayed as accused in C.C.No.4 of 2003. Under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of A.P.Prize Chit, Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 and under Section 420 IPC Crime No.586 of 2002 was registered on the basis of a report of the present petitioner (de facto complainant). Learned trial Court, after completion of trial, found the respondents to be not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of A.P. Prize Chit, Money Circulation (Banning) Act 1978, but found the respondents guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The respondents filed an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry in Crl.A.No.235 of 2003. Learned appellate Court, after hearing the parties, set aside the conviction and sentence of the learned trial Court under Section 420 IPC. Against the order of acquittal, the instant criminal revision case has been preferred by the present petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the present petitioner submits that the learned appellate Court has committed error by passing the impugned order of acquittal. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court was well founded, which was not required to be set aside. The prosecution is justifiably proved and established the charge under Section 420 IPC against the respondents. Thus, the order of acquittal is bad in law.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned appellate Court has justifiably scanned the evidences on record and has held that the charge under Section 420 IPC has not been established. He further submits that the evidences are not justifiable to prove the offence under Section 420 IPC.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court.

5. It appears that at the time of passing impugned judgment, the appellate Court has considered the evidences of prosecution placed before the learned tri