THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1989, 1990, 1991, 2006 AND 2007 OF 2016

COMMON ORDER:

The Criminal Revision Case No.1989 of 2016 is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 21.06.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad (for short, “the trial Court”) confirming the judgment dated 11.01.2016 in C.C.No.182 of 2015 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. The Criminal Revision Case No.1990 of 2016 is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 21.06.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2016 on the file of the appellate Court confirming the judgment dated 11.01.2016 in C.C.No.183 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court.

3. The Criminal Revision Case No.1991 of 2016 is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 21.06.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2016 on the file of the appellate Court confirming the judgment dated 11.01.2016 in C.C.No.155 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court.

4. The Criminal Revision Case No.2006 of 2016 is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 21.06.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2016 on the file of the appellate Court confirming the judgment dated 11.01.2016 in C.C.No.156 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court.

5. The Criminal Revision Case No.2007 of 2016 is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 21.06.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2016 on the file of the appellate Court confirming the judgment dated 11.01.2016 in C.C.No.181 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court.

Since, the issue involved in all these Revision Cases is one and the same, they are disposed of by way of a common order.

6. Heard Mr. Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

For the sake of convenience, the facts in Criminal Revision Case No.1989 of 2007 are discussed as under:-

7. The brief facts of the case are that LW1 Akshay Varma was having savings account No.20137803094 at State Bank of India, Secunderabad. It is stated that on 04.06.2014, at about 16:11 hours, LW1 received SMS alert stating that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn from his account through ATM at Goad. Immediately he went to ATM at Lal Banglow, Ameerpet and tried to withdraw some amount but he could not get any amount and he received advisory slip “sorry unable to process”, and on screen it was shown as “maximum amount limit has reached”. It is stated that LW1, immediately visited the Home branch and blocked the ATM Debit Card and filed the complaint. Basing on the said complaint given by LW1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station registered the case against the accused and upon completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.

8. Cognizance of the case was taken against accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offences under Sections 420 and 380 of I.P.C. and Sections 66, 66(c), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (for short, “IT Act”) and Section 212 of I.P.C. Accused Nos.1, 2, 5 to 8 absconded.

9. Accused Nos.3 and 4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Basing on the prima facie material available on record, charges under Sections 420 and 380 of I.P.C. and Sections 66, 66(c), 66(D) of the IT Act and Section 212 of I.P.C. were framed against the accused Nos.3 and 4, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. The trial Court vide judgment dated 11.01.2016 in C.C.No.182 of 2015 found accused Nos.3 and 4 guilty for the charges under Sections 420 and 380 of I.P.C. and Sections 66, 66(c), 66(D) of the IT Act and they were convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted as under:-

“A3 and A4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years each for the offence under Section 380 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousa