BURLE MALLESHAM Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the order of the III-Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-II), Khammam in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2005, dated 30.10.2006.

(2.) The petitioner-accused is tried for the offence under Sections 420 and 506 IPC by the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam in CC No.646 of 2001. On 02.05.2001, the de-facto complainant Smt. C. Suryakala lodged a report with the police alleging that the accused being the agent of Asra India, persuaded her to make deposits with the company and believing his words, she made deposits of Rs.20,000/- in her name, Rs.40,000/- in the name of her daughter Dhanalaxmi and recurring deposit of Rs.5,000/- in the name of her another daughter Kalyani. Even after maturity of the fixed deposits, the amounts were not paid and when she asked the accused, he kept on postponing the same. On 01.02.2001, she along with accused went to Asra India office at Hyderabad and she was informed by the neighbouring shop people that the company was closed three and half years ago. The complainant submitted that the accused cheated her and collected amounts till September, 2000 although the company had been closed. She further stated that when she demanded the accused for the amount, the accused threatened her with dire consequences. The said report was registered as Crime No.108 of 2001 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC and after recording the statements of witnesses, collecting the documents, and arresting the accused, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. The I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam had taken cognizance of the case for the above offences, framed charges under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, explained to the accused and when the accused pleaded not guilty, proceeded with the trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P40. The evidence of PW.4 - Investigating Officer was eschewed from consideration as he failed to appear before the Court inspite of receiving the summons for facing the cross-examination.