PALAM BUDDAGANDLA OBAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused who preferred this revision was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sidhout for the offence under Section 418 I.P.C. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred criminal appeal No.164 of 2002 before the Sessions Court. THE learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 4.09.2001, the accused tried to cheat the bank by pledging four bangles with it as if they were gold bangles while the bangles sought to be pledged by the accused were not gold bangles. Alleging that the accused, thus, cheated the bank, P.W.1 - Manager of the bank lodged Ex.P.1 complaint with the police. Police registered the complaint as Ex.P.2 F.I.R. THE accused was arrested on 20.09.2001 by the police.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused approached Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, Sidhout branch at about 11.30 A.M. on 4.09.2001 with four bangles and was seeking loan on the value of the bangles as a pledge. As in the usual course, P.W.1 sent the bangles to a Goldsmith. THE Goldsmith was indeed cited as a witness in the charge sheet (as L.W.3). THE Goldsmith, however, was not examined by the prosecution. THE efficacy of the non-examination of the Goldsmith shall be considered later. After the Goldsmith tested the bangles brought to him by an employee of the bank (P.W.2), the Goldsmith considered that the bangles were not gold bangles. He accordingly issued Ex.P.3 certificate stating that the bangles were brass bangles and not gold bangles. P.W.2 brought back the report of the Goldsmith to P.W.1. P.W.1 would have lodged Ex.P.1 complaint only thereafter.