The State of Andhra Pradesh v. R.Narsing Rao

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G,SRI DEVI CRL.A.No.511 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.2009 recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad., in CRL.A.No.95 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 47'l of l.P.C. The appellant is the State. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 to A-3 hatched a plan and conspired together and obtained loan from prudential Co-operative Bank Limited, Secunderabad by impersonating the complainant (P.W.1) as A-2 and mortgaging joint property of A-1 and P.W.

The trial Court framed charges against A-1 to A-3 for the offences under Sections 468, 471. and 420 of I.p.C. plea of the accused is one of total denial. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got markecl Exs. Pl to p13 and X1 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused Exs.D1 was marked. On considering the entire material available on record, the trial Court, vide judgment in C.C.No.410 of 2006 dated

25.03.2008, found A-1 to A-3 guilry of the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 47'1, of I.p.C. and consequently convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 davs for the offence punishable under Section 477 I.P.C. and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in de{ault, to suffer simple imprisonment for 60 days for the offence punishable under Section 471 ol I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A-1 to A-3 preferred Crl.A.No.9S of 2008 and that the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by judgment dated 20.02.2009, after re-appreciating the entire material on record, acquitted the accused as he found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Against the said judgment of acquittai, tl-re State preferred the preserrt appeal.

Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents-accused. I have gone through the eviclence and the judgments of the Court below. P.W.1 and A-1 are brothers and they are joint owners of house property bearing No.15-5-586, Ashok Bazar, Hyderabad. It is alleged that by mortgaging the said property and A-2 impersonating himself as P.W.1, A-1 and A-2 obtained loan of Rs.2,05,000/- on 20.01.1995 iointly from Prudential Co- operative Bank Limited bv executing relevant documents with forged signatures of P.W.l and that A-3 stood as guarantor for J the said loan. Subsequently, the loanees became defaulters and the bank filed a case for recoverv of loan amount before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and obtained an award and then filecl E.P.7-t6 of 1998 for realizatiorr of Rs'4,27,009/- with interest covered by the award and that P.W.1 received notice in Execution Petition, approached the bank, verified the records and found his signatures were forged and that since joint property was put to sale by the bank to realize the award amount, P.W.1 and A-1 discharged the loan amount to the i bank.

The appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence of Bank Managers, who were examined as P'Ws.2 and 3, held that P.W.1 was also a co-loanee along with his brother A-1 and both of them executed Exs.P2 to P4 iointly. From a perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that P.W.1 gave a false report to the police with a view to avoid repayment of his share of loan amount. There is no evidence let in to show that anybody other than P.W.1 forged signatures of P.W.1 in Exs'P2 to P4' Having considered the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondents-accused and after perusing the judgment of the appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court is justified in recording the acquittal, as nothing is pointecl out to interfere with the judgment of the appeliate \ Court. The appellate Court discussed the entire eviclence in detail and came to a correct conclusion that the respondents- accused were not guilty of the offences with which they were charged.

The eviderrce let in by the prosecution cloes not inspire conlidence to plove the guilt of the respondents- accused and the appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in acquitting the respondents-accused. I find no reason or justification to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SDICH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGTS]RAR .)/ \-,2 SECTION OFFICER 1 The Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad(6r H1" R*"L'JJ" ) The Station House Officer, Panjagutta, Police Station, Hyderabad. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SmlD. Sangeetha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3

M[/K p HIGH COURT DATED:2310212021 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.S11 of 2010 #t tASEH1 i 3 15tlAR 2C21 * D { * -cii o D!SMISS!NG THE CRIMINAL APPEAL . % o1l" \ o