THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.724 OF 2012

ORDER:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 18.11.2010, in C.C.No.29 of 2004, whereunder respondents/ accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that accused No.1, proprietor of Surana’s Rawath Super Market, Secunderabad, applied for a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- at the State Bank of Hyderabad, Bollaram Branch, with the help of accused No.3-the Branch Manager, and submitted a fabricated irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) for land in Sy.No.18 of Ahmedguda Village, falsely claiming ownership, though the property belongs to Javvadi Balaiah and later Javvadi Yadaiah, who were illiterates and Javvadi Yadaiah died before the alleged execution of the GPA, leading to the registration of the present criminal case.

3. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that respondent No.1/accused No.1, Anil Kumar Surana, filed a memo as a party-in- person on 15.02.2024, vide U.S.R. No.15986 of 2024, stating that respondent No.2/accused No.2, S.Ashok Kumar Surana, had passed away on 13.03.2022. A copy of the death certificate was enclosed along with the memo. In view of the same, the appeal stands abated against Respondent No.2/Accused No.2. It is further stated in the memo that he is suffering from kidney and prostate problems. The record further reveals that respondent No.1 has not engaged any counsel to represent him in the matter.

4. Heard Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant.

5. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and

3/accused Nos.1 and 3 either in physical mode or virtual mode.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court, without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, erroneously passed the impugned judgment, despite the fact that the respondents/accused had committed the offences. He further submitted that merely the prosecution has not taken steps to send the disputed documents to handwriting expert for verification, the trial Court ought to have sent the signatures of the accused for comparison which were very much available on record.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that accused No.2 availed the loan by using forged and fabricated documents, namely Exs.P18 and P19. However, the trial Court relied on the evidence of PW-5 and PW-9, who had given a legal opinion stating that the documents marked as Exs.P18 and P19 were valid for the purpose of obtaining a loan, passed the impugned judgment. He further submitted that PWs.5 and 9 only recommended the bank to sanction the loan based on the documents submitted by the accused and the prosecution discharged their burden by proving the case against the respondents/accused. However, the trial Court without considering the same, acquitted the respondents/accused and passed impugned judgment and the same is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside and the respondents/accused are liable for punishment for the alleged offences.

8. Having considered the submissions made by the leaned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that, based on the complaint lodged by PW.1, Crime No.75 of 1997 was registered against the respondents. After conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet before the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which took cognizance of the matter and numbered the case as C.C. No.29 of 2004. The record further discloses that, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 26 witnesses were examined, and Exs.P1 to P67 documents were marked. On behalf of the respondents/accused, Exs.D1 and D2 were