APHC010402932012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3367]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 70/2012 Between:

Padamanti Govinda Raju @ Solamon Raju @ S.raju, ...PETITIONER Kakinada AND State Of Ap Rep By Public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 71/2012 Between:

Dindi Saibaba ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep By Its Pp ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Assailing the Common Judgment dated 17.01.2012 in Crl.A.Nos.225 and 229 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, confirming the conviction passed against the accused Nos.1 & 2 by the Judgment dated 05.09.2009 in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Amalapuram, for the offences under Sections 384 and 385 read with 34 IPC, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 filed the present criminal revision cases under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. These revision cases were admitted on 18.01.2012 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioners were suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.113 and 114 of 2012, respectively.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:

i) Accused Nos.1 & 2 are native of Kakinada and Ex-newspaper reporters. They used to extort the public and earn money. PW.1 and PW.2 are the husband and wife. PW.1 being native of Mukkamala Village and he is the trustee of choultry Nos.1 and 2 of Mukkamala Village. The said two choultries are under the control of Endowment Department. PW.3 and PW.4 are the purohits of two choultries. In the year 1996, choultry No.1 was damaged due to cyclone hit. The Endowment Department sanctioned Rs.2,00,000/- for reconstruction of the said choultry. After completion of work, audit was completed to the expenses by the Government.

ii) While the matter stood thus, in the year 2004, 1^st week of August, A2 came to the house of PW.1 and got acquaintance with him by introducing his name as Raju and working as reporter in Janaspandana newspaper and he came from Kakinada and threatened PW.1 by putting fear that the grant of Endowment Department was misappropriated without re-construction of choultries and took photos of PW.1 threatening that he will publish the photos and allegations against him in the paper. Later, he demanded to give an amount of Rs.20,000/- to him. If he failed to pay the same, he publishes his biodata in all newspapers. Thus, A2 took an amount of Rs.18,000/- from PW.1 forcibly and thereby cheated him by his deceitful words.

iii) On 18.11.2004, accused Nos.1 & 2 came to Mukkamala Village with a view to threaten PW.1 and earn money by putting in fear. A2 sent A1 to the house of PW.1 by giving lesson, how to act before PW.1. On the instigation of A2, A1 approached PW.2, as PW.1 did not present at that time A1 introduced himself that he came from Assistant Commissioner’s Office at Kakinada and asked her about PW.1 and that PW.2 replied that, PW.1 went outside.

iv) On 19.11.2004, A1 telephoned to PW.1 and threatened him that he committed fraud in reconstruction of Mukkamala choultries. On 21.11.2004, A1 & A2 came to Mukkamala, waited at Mukkamala center, and sent A1 to PW.1. A1 went to the house of PW.1 at about 11.00 a.m. and got introduced himself that he is Aruna Patrika reporter and threatened him by putting in fear that he committed fraud in reconstruction of choultries and demanded him to pay Rs.25,000/-. If he failed to pay the said amount, he would publish the allegations in the newspaper. Then, PW.1 got suspicion on the behaviour of A1 and he informed the same to PWs.3 to 5. When, PWs.3 to 5 went to the h