THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No

Counsel for the Petitioners :Ms. Keerti Kabra Counsel for the Respondent :Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: OROER ::1 THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.184 of2015 ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Cabe is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment dated 30.01.20 15 in Cr1.A.No.762 of 2013 passed by the Court of the IX Additional District ald Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (for short 'appellate Court'), confirming the Judgment dated 03.72.2013 in C.C.No.316 of 2OO9 passed by the Court of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar (for short 'trial Court').

2. Heard Ms. Keerti, learned counsel for the revision accused Nos.3 and 4 and Sri E. Ganesh, petitioners learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State. Perused the record'

3. The brief facts of the case are that accused No'l hatched a plan to cheat innocent people by making false promise for securing them government jobs, and in that process, he had lured accused No.2 with the promise of pn'oviding a job in the Railways and gave him a forged 2 -:. appointment letter and identity card of South Central Railway and also a uniform. But, when accused No.2 went to report to the Railway Authorities he was turned away and then he rea\zed that he was cheated by accused No.l. However, in turn accused No.2 lured the de facto complainant i.e. PW 1 with a similar false promise and introduced him to accused No.1, who collected ar amount of Rs.7O,00O/- from PW- 1 on the pretext of arranging a job to him as attender in the Railways. However, when PW-l went to Sanchalan Bhavan, Accounts Office, Hyderabad Division of South Central Railway, with the appointment order and identity card given to him by the accused, the Railway officials made it clear that these documents were fake and he too realized that he r,r,as cheated. Thereafter accused No.2 acting in collusion with accused No.1 lured accused No.3, 4 and other victims with false promises of arranging jobs and collected an amount of Rs.35,000 / each from them. When these victims demanded an explanation, accused No.1 and 2 dodged them for some time and suddenly accused No.1 disappeared. Thereupon, PWs 2 to 5, PW-7 and LW-B Harun Shareef and LW.9 Syed Saleem accosted accused Nos.2 to 4 i I I I J and clemandecl refund of the amounts collected from them, but there was no response from accused Nos'2 to 4' However, when PW- 1 insisted accused No.2 to return the amount taken from him, the accused threatened him with dire consequences. Thereby the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 42O and 47 I of I.P.C. Based on a complaint lodged with the Police at Pahadishareef Police Station, a case in Crime No.468 of 2O0B for the punishable offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC was registered by PW-8/Sub Inspector of Police, Pahadishareef Police Station. PW-B took up investigation of the case and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the trial Court and thereupon the trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 4O8. 42O and 47 I of IPC.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs' 1 to 9 were examined and got marked trxs.Pl to Ex.PS. In defence, none examined, except making Ex.Dl and the Material objects I and 2. 4

5. After appreciation of evidence, both the oral and documentary, available on record, the trial Court uide judgment dated 03.L2.2013 found the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 42O and 471 of iPC, according\r, convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ each, for each punishable offence under Sections 468, 42O and 471 of I.P.C, in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The case against accused No.1 was split up and numbered as C.C.No.387 of 2Ol2

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated O3.12.2013 in C.C.No.316 of 2OO9, the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.762 of 2013 before the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court, after re-appreciation of evidence and material facts placed before it and upon considering the trial Court judgment dated

03.12.2013 in C.C.No.316 of 2OO9, uide judgment dated

30.o 1 015 in Cr1.A.No.762 of 2Ol3 dismissed the criminal t 1 appeal, while confirming the conviction and sentence 5 imposed by the trial Court against the petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 4. Assailing the same, the petitioners/ accused Nos.3 and 4 filed the present Revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trail Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the euidence available on record in proper perspective and passed the respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that accused No. 1 was the mastermind behind the scheme, introducing unemployed individuals to secl-lre employment in the South Central Railway and collecting money from all the victims. The main allegations against the revision petitioners are that they parted u'ith money to secure jobs and paid money to accused No.l. Thev then colluded with accused No. 1 and cheated all the victims by introducing him to them, promising to help them to obtain jobs. The allegations state that they facilitated the introduction of accused No.1, and that accused Nos.2 and 3 facilitated the payment of money to secure jobs in the South Central Railway. Learned counsel for the petitioners further ;i 6 contended that the appointment orders were given by accused No. t himself, and it is not stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 issued any appointment letters to the victims. The victims paid money to accused No.l through accused Nos.3 ar:,d 4, believing the words of accused Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, the collusion of accused Nos.2 ald 3 is evident, ar.ld Accused No.1 cannot be excluded from this. PW 1 turned hostile, and the depositions of PW-2, PW-S, PW-7, and PW-9 disclosed that the amounts had been paid to accused No. I . It was revealed that accused Nos.3 and 4 who are the revision petitioners, introduced one Mr. Saleem to accused No.l They informed the victims about the vacancies and arranged for the amounts to be paid to accused Nos.1 to 4. The entire case exposed that accused No.1 cheated the other victims. The case against accused No. 1 was split and a separate case uide C.C.No.387 of 2Ol2 was registered against him.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the revision petitioners have been wrongly arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4. They do not have crimina-l history and are.not invoived in any wrongdoing. None of the depositions demonstrated that accused Nos. 3 and 4 received I I I I 7 money from the victims, except introducing accused No.1. They merely facilitated the victims' medical examination at I Galdi Hospital, therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment. lO. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that it is a very serious offence to deceive the victims, who are otherwise unemployed, by creating false hope, forging documents, and appointment orders, and cheating them altogether. trx.P2 is the report issued stating that the said appointment letters were not issued by RRB, Secunderabad. He contended that both the Courts, upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record in right perspective, passed the respective judgments and the interference of this Court with 1 I the u,ell considered judgments of both the Courts below is unwarranted. He, therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision.

11. Having regard to the submissions made by the iearned counsel for the respective parties and taking into consideration the fact of mental agony ald hardship suffered by the petitioners/ accused Nos.3 and 4 during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court 8 and also the fact that nine long years have already been elapsed from the date of frling this Revision, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view to modify the judgment passed by the trail Court, as confirmed by the appellate Court, and while convicting the petitioners/ accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 42O and 471 IPC, however, reduced the sentence to three months simple imprisonment each and the period already undergone by the petitioners/ accused Nos.3 and 4 shall be given set off under Section 428(ll of Cr.P.C L2. Expect the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER L.B.Nagar -sup"rintendent, 'l . The lX Additional District and Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at z. in. XIV Metropolitan Magistrate' Cyberabad' L B Nagar I. ih" i. i'f," Srp"ri"tendent' Cherlapalli, Medchal-M-alkajgiri District 5. o"; ci to nrs. KEERTI KABRA, Advocate toPUC.l 6 i;; ccs to the Public Piosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at 7. Two CD CoPies Cential Prison, Chenchalguda' Hyderabad Hyderabad (OUT) L I To, V ADK,IPSL ..1 "J HIGH COURT DATED:0810112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.184 of 2015 o( 11HE S I/q o o f.r 2 0 ,turu 2n25 DISMISSING THE CRLRC ( A ,.(\ \ \'\ 6 6