(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case before this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No. 235 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, dated 10.7.2008 preferred against the judgment made in CC.No. 4 of 2003, dated 07.11.2003 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry.

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1925 OF 2008

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the Original Copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.4 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, dated 07.11.2003.)

1. Respondents were arrayed as accused in C.C.No.4 of 2003. Under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of A.P.Prize Chit, Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 and under Section 420 IPC Crime No.586 of 2002 was registered on the basis of a report of the present petitioner (de facto complainant). Learned trial Court, after completion of trial, found the respondents to be not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of A.P. Prize Chit, Money Circulation (Banning) Act 1978, but found the respondents guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The respondents filed an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry in Crl.A.No.235 of 2003. Learned appellate Court, after hearing the parties, set aside the conviction and sentence of the learned trial Court under Section 420 IPC. Against the order of acquittal, the instant criminal revision case has been preferred by the present petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the present petitioner submits that the learned appellate Court has committed error by passing the impugned order of acquittal. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court was well founded, which was not required to be set aside. The prosecution is justifiably proved and established the charge under Section 420 IPC against the respondents. Thus, the order of acquittal is bad in law.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned appellate Court has justifiably scanned the evidences on record and has held that the charge under Section 420 IPC has not been established. He further submits that the evidences are not justifiable to prove the offence under Section 420 IPC.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court.

5. It appears that at the time of passing impugned judgment, the appellate Court has considered the evidences of prosecution placed before the learned trial Court. He also of view that the prosecution has not proved any circumstances where from which can be assumed that the accused has got intention at the beginning of the said business to defraud the present petitioner.

6. Before the learned trial Court, prosecution has placed as many as eight witnesses. Prosecution has also produced 15 documents, marked as Exs.P.1 to P.15.

7. Admittedly, the alleged chit fund business was continuing since the year 1986. Petitioner was time to time subscriber of the chits by placing their funds. The document established that for some time they also received dividends from the companies. Evidence also goes to show that during the course of the business, the 1st accused got losses in such business as a result of which, his liability became more than his assets thereafter, filed an insolvency petition before the appropriate form.

8. To prove an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, the ingredients of cheating has to be proved. According to the law established under Section 420 IPC:

                  420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—

                  Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

9. From the above definition of cheating, it appears that to constitute an offence of cheating, the offender must induce a person, to show that the victim, after got deceived may deliver any property in favour of for use of offender. The definition of cheating for wrongful gain of others property and intention should exists from the initiation of transaction. The prosecution witnesses of the instant case though have produced the several documents before the trial Court to show that they have deposited several huge amounts of money with the said business of the accused person but no ingredients or evidences is embodied in the prosecution case regarding dishonest intention or intentional inducement of the accused person, which resulted the present petitioner to deposit such huge amounts with the business.

10. I am of the view that the observation of the learned appellate Court regarding the non-presence of the ingredients under Section 420 IPC the prosecution case is justifiable. I find no justification to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court.

11. On the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case dismissed as devoid of merits.

                  As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.