MARIPALLI MAHIRATHNAM GUPTA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner assails the conviction and the sentence passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore by his Judgment dated 28-11-1994, in CC No.331 of 1989 convicting him for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and further sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and confirmed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore; by his judgement dated 6-5-1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1994.

(2.) In connection with picturisation of motion picture entitled "Bharya Bharthala Bhagavatham" in the year 1987, it is said that the petitioner approached PWs.l, 2 and 3 for loan. PW1 paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the petitioner as loan on the foot of the promissory note dated 25-8-1987 in Ex.Pl. PW2 advanced an amount of Rs.70,000/- on the foot of another promissory note dated 27-6-1987 in Ex.P9. PW3 paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- on 17- 8-1987 under Ex.Pl0-promissory note. Interest was stipulated at 24 per cent per annum. It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner could not repay the amount and when pressure was brought upon him for repayment, he delivered post dated cheques to all the three creditors. Ex.P2 dated 25-8-1988 for Rs.50,000/-; Ex.P3 dated 26-9-1988 for Rs.50,000/-; and Ex.Pl3 dated 27-10-1988 for Rs.92,4007- are, according to the prosecution, post dated cheques issued by the petitioner. All these cheques were presented before the Canara Bank three months thereafter. All the three cheques were bounced on the premise that the account was closed. It is further said that thereafter the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known, upon enquiries made by the witnesses-PWs. 1 to 3. On a report-Ex.P6 lodged by PW1 with CCS Police, the criminal law was set into motion and eventually after investigation the charge- sheet was filed and cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 420 of IPC against the revision petitioner.

(3.) In the trial six witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and Exs.Pl to P18 were got marked. The plea of the revision petitioner is denial of having executed the promissory notes and denial of having issued the cheques. Upon considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, as aforesaid, convicted the petitioner for the offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. The appeal, too, ended in dismissal confirming the conviction and sentence.