01. The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 U/secs.397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to set aside the judgment dated 02.07.2015 passed in C.C.124/2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Machilipatnam, as confirmed in the judgment dated 10.07.2017 in Crl.A.No.154/2015 on the file of VI Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

02. Heard Sri Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent.

03. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the accused were charged for offence U/s.420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’). The learned trial Court convicted the accused for the offence U/s.420 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years each and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each.

04. The learned counsel for petitioners would further submit that the revision petitioners preferred appeal before the VI Addl.District & Sessions Court, Machilipatnam, challenging the judgment of the learned trial Court on the ground that the evidence of prosecution did not make out any offence much less, the offence punishable U/s.420 IPC. The Appellate Court below dismissed the appeal. Hence, the revision came to be filed.

05. He would further argue that the prosecution examined P. Ws-1 to 17 to prove the offence U/s.420 IPC. A reading of the said evidence would not disclose the ingredients necessary to prove the offence U/s.420 IPC against the revision petitioners. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court and the Appellate Court below are not sustainable in law and conviction, and sentence may be set aside.

06. He would further submit that in any event, if this Court did not agree with the contention of the revision petitioners, the order of sentence of imprisonment may be modified, confirming the fine amount.

07. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing State vehemently opposed the revision petition. He would submit that the prosecution during trial of the case has examined the victims as P. Ws-1 to 11. They categorically deposed that the accused deceived them on the pretext of providing employment and made them to part money as deposed in their evidence and later, eloped with the money, and therefore, all the ingredients of the offence U/s.420 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt against both the revision petitioners. Hence, the trial Court convicted them for the offence U/s.420 IPC. The Appellate Court below concurred with the trial Court finding on facts and dismissed the appeal and there are no grounds to interfere in the revision petition.

08. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that arose for consideration in this Criminal Revision Case is as under:

                  “Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court Below and trial Court warrants interference of this Court and liable to be set aside as prayed for?”

09. POINT:

                  Admittedly, both the revision petitioners, who are accused No.1 and 2 in the case were charged for the offence U/s.420 IPC.

10. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 addicted to vices, and he planned to collect money from the unemployed youth by saying that he will provide Attender post in LIC Office, Vijayawada and collected Rs.70,000/- from A-2 and failed to provide job to A-2. Later, A-2 joined with A-1 and instigated the unemployed youth to pay money to A-1, as he will provide Government jobs to them. In that process, P. Ws-1 to 11, A-1 and A-2 conspired with each other and made them to pay amounts to them with a fraudulent intention to get wrongful gain with their deceitful words. Believing their words, P.Ws-1 to 11, paid an amount of Rs.22,65,000/- to A-1 and A-2. Later, both accused failed to provide jobs to the unemployed. On 19.10.2009 P.W-1 came to Gudur Police Station and presented a joint report to ASI of Police, who registered the case in Cr.No.124/2009 U/s.420 r/w.34 IPC and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, police arrested both the accused on 07.11.2009 and sent them for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused.

11. The prosecution to prove the charge U/s.420 IPC, examined P. Ws-1 to 11. The Investigating Officers were examined as P. Ws-16 and 17.

12. Perusal of the record would show that all the victims in one voice deposed categorically about the overt acts of the accused regarding deceit and collection of money to provide jobs. Later, running away with the money collected from the victims. It shows that accused had intention to deceive the victims from the inception on the pretext of providing employment. Accordingly, they made false promise to the victims and deceived them and made victims to part with the money. Therefore, the evidence of the victims proved the offence U/s.420 IPC. Hence, the trial Court rightly convicted the revision petitioners for the offence U/s.420 IPC. The Appellate Court Below considered the evidence on record and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction ordered by the learned trial Court. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction order of the learned trial Court and dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Court Below.

13. Now the question is whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court below require any modification?

14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the sentence of imprisonment of two years may be set-aside considering present age of the revision petitioners.

15. Learned trial Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment of two years each and fine of Rs.3,000/- each on the revision petitioners/accused.

16. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and their age at present as submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, this Court is of the opinion, that the sentence of imprisonment of two years imposed by the learned trial Court can be altered to a sentence of imprisonment for one (01) year each. But no modification of the sentence of fine amount.

17. In the light of foregoing discussion, the revision petition is allowed in-part, in respect of quantum sentence of imprisonment only. Accordingly, the point is answered.

18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

                  The sentence of imprisonment of two (02) years each imposed by the learned trial Court is modified as sentence of imprisonment for one (01) year each. There is no modification of the sentence of fine amount. This order be certified to the lower Court, as per section 405 of Cr.P.C.

                  As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.