Telangana High Court
Boini Anjani , Anjamma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.71 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.01.2010 in Crl.A.No.79 of 2006, on the file of V Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) at L.B.Nagar, R.R. District.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. The revision petitioners were tried for the offence under Section 56 of A.P.Chit Funds Act and also for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.
4. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioners/accused is that they were running private chit business. Though they were paying prize amounts of clients promptly, however, there was an outstanding of Rs.25,00,000/- which had to be paid by the accused. Witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are all victims who stated that they have joined chit business being run by A-1 2 and A-2 and amounts were paid, however, prize amount was not given by the accused after conclusion of the chit period. They came to know that both A-1 and A-2 were absconding. On the basis of the complaint filed by P.W.1, crime was registered and investigated by the Police. Charge sheet was filed for the offences under Section 56 of A.P.Chit Funds Act and Section 420 of IPC.
5. Learned Magistrate having examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.5 found favour with the prosecution version of the accused cheating the subscribers, accordingly, convicted them. The said conviction was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that in fact procedure followed for investigation is improper and complaint if any has to be given to Sub-Registrar of Chits and not to the Police. Counsel further argued that even assuming that chits being run, the question of there being any fraud from the inception of transaction does not arise, since prize amounts were given initially. For the said reason, since none of the ingredients of either Section 420 of IPC or 3 Section 56 of A.P.Chit Funds Act are made out, the petitioners are entitled for acquittal.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that running chit business without valid license, thereafter absconding that itself would prove that petitioners had intention to cheat the subscribers who are P.Ws.1 to 7 and others.
8. Having gone through the record, it is evidence of witnesses that they were members of chit business being run by the accused. Initially amounts were paid as and when it was due, however, subsequently, they did not pay the amounts and absconded.
9. To attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there has to be an act of deception. The person deceived must have delivered property believing the misstatement. When it is admitted by the witnesses that initially amounts which were due as prize amounts of the chits were given, it cannot be said that there was any intention to defraud from the inception of transaction. The prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients attracting an offence under 4 Section 420 of IPC and accordingly, conviction under Section 420 of IPC is set aside.
10. The evidences of witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 clearly indicate that without there being valid license which has to be taken under the Chit Funds Act, A-1 and A-2 were running chit business, which is in violation of Chit Funds Act and punishable under Section 56 of the said Act.
11. In the said circumstances, conviction under Section 56 of the Chit Funds Act is sustained, however, sentence of imprisonment under Section 56 of the Act is reduced to the period already undergone.
12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 16.07.2024 dv