Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Patan Jelani Khan, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 25 January, 2023
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1135 OF 2008
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998, on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole and accused in C.C.No.194 of 1996, on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District, challenging the judgment, dated 04.12.2003 of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereunder the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the judgment, dated 29.05.1998 in C.C.No.194 of 1996 of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District.
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3) The present petitioner faced charge under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (―I.P.C.‖ for short) in C.C.No.194 of 1996, on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District and he was found guilty and he was convicted and accordingly, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 three months. Challenging the same, he filed the Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998 as above which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the same, he filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet in Crime No.99 of 1994 under Section 420 of I.P.C. of II Town Police Station, Ongole, is as follows:
The accused is working as a Messenger in D.T.O. Office (Telecom Department), Ongole and he used to arrange passports and visas for those who intend to go to Gulf countries for employment. It is further alleged that, the accused with dishonest means of earning more money informed Patan Rasheed Khan (L.W.2) that his uncle is at Saudi Arabia working as an Engineer in the Philippines Company and offered for an electrician in Saudi Arabia and further the accused promised Patan Rasheed Khan (L.W.2) that he would send him to Saudi and provide Electrician job at Saudi in his uncle's company and demanded Rs.50,000/- from Patan Rasheed Khan (L.W.2) for that purpose. Believing the false and deceitful words of the accused, Patan Rasheed Khan (L.W.2) gave Rs.47,000/- to the accused in the presence of Patan Mehataj Begum, Shaik Mohiddin Saheb, Shaik Ismail Baig, Shaik Abdulwahab (L.W.1, L.Ws.3 to 5) for providing employment in 3 Saudi Arabia along with some other persons who are also cheated by the accused. Patan Rasheed Khan (L.W.2) was sent Saudi Arabia without any employment there. Patan Rasheed Khan searched for the address which was given to him by the accused and found that the address given by the accused is false and Patan Rasheed Khan suffered a lot at Saudi Arabia and faced lot of troubles. Even he could not get food everyday and ultimately with the help of some known persons in Saudi Arabia, he survived and ultimately sent a letter to his wife narrating all the facts and the cheating made by the accused. On receipt of the letter i.e., on 05.08.1994 at 10-00 hours, Patan Mehataj Begum reported the matter to II Town Police Station, Ongole and the investigating officer, Station House Officer of Ongole registered the report as a case in Crime No.99 of 1994 under Section 420 of I.P.C. and investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, G. Ramakoteswara Rao (L.W.7), Station House Officer, arrested the accused and produced before the Court for remand and examined Patan Mehataj Begum, Patan Rasheed Khan, Shaik Mohiddin Saheb, Shaik Ismail Baig, Shaik Abdul Waheb (L.Ws.1 to 5) and recorded their statements. Hence, the charge sheet.
5) The learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, took the case on file under Section 420 of I.P.C. and issued process 4 for appearance of the accused. On appearance of the accused and after furnishing copies of documents under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (―Cr.P.C.‖ for short), examined the accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. was framed and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6) During the course of trial, in order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. Accused got marked Exs.D.1 and D.2 during the cross examination of P.Ws.3 and 4. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which he denied the same. He stated in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination a version and it is quite necessary to extract here the version made by the accused, as it can be used in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the accused:
―Since 5 or 6 years I have been working in Telagraph Office. If we do not know the address mentioned in the Telegrams, we go to Post Office and enquire there. Thus, when I went to enquire in Lawyerpet Post Office, I got acquaintance with one Shaik Mastan, who is working as permanent Messenger there. During our conversations, the said Shaik Mastan told me that his son by name Shaik Meeravali is working in Saudi. Later, Meeravali returned to 5 India from Saudi. Shaik Mastan introduced his son Shaik Meeravali to me. After his introduction to me, one day Shaik Meeravali came to me along with Pathan Rasheed Khan, Shaik Mehaboob Basha and Grandhi Sudhakar and informed that after his going to Saudi, he will arrange visas to those three persons. He requested me to help him to send those three persons to Saudi. Within three months thereafter, Shaik Meeravali went to Saudi Arabia. He arranged visa to Rasheed Khan. All the three persons got one visa. They came to me along with visa papers, Bombay Servicing Papers and dresses with a request to accompany them to Bombay. I told them that I don't come. Then, they telephoned Meeravali, who obliged me to accompany them till Bombay. Accordingly, we went to Bombay on 13.06.1994. Pathan Rasheed Khan, Shaik Mahaboob Basha and Grandhi Sudhakar underwent the required medical examinations at Sandip Medicals and the medical certificates were issued to them. On 29.06.1994, their tickets to fly to Bahrain were confirmed. Due to the persistent demand of those persons, we took a photograph at Bombay. As Grandhi Sudhakar proceeded to his relatives house at Bombay, he was not there in the photo. Thereafter, I returned to Ongole and got myself engaged in my routine activities. After 15 days of their flying to Saudi, MLA - Adenna along with one Rowdy sheeter came to him saying Rasheed addressed a letter to them stating that I am responsible for his problems. I informed them that I am not responsible for that. Later, they went away. The next day i.e., on 05.08.1994 morning at 09:00 a.m. when I am going to attend my duty, Police enquired me. They informed me to come to the Police Station and meet S.I. Accordingly, I went to the Police Station. There the Police enquired me as I have sent Rasheed to Dubai. When I informed them that I do not know anything, they took me to the Court and booked an illegal case against me. I informed this to Grandhi Sudhakar by phone, then he sent me some papers to me. The papers sent by 6 Grandhi Sudhakar were given to me by his father. When I have shown the papers sent by Grandhi Sudhakar through his father to the S.I., he did not accept those papers. I am not at all concerned with this case.‖
7) The learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. and convicted him under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, he filed Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998, which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the same, he filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
8) Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment, dated 04.12.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998, on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongle, suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?
Point:-
9) Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that to establish an offence of cheating under Section 420 of I.P.C., the prosecution should have been in a 7 position to prove that at the time of the so-called inducement, accused was with dishonest intention to cheat P.W.1 and the essential ingredients of cheating are lacking in the present case on hand.
10) Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Jamu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in Ghulam Mohammad Naikoo vs. Abdul Qayoom Wani in CRMC No.107 of 2017 decided on 18.07.2022 relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would further rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and another [(2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 168] to contend that there should have been a dishonest intention which has to be proved by the prosecution from the beginning at the time of so-
called inducement to prove the offence of cheating.
11) Relying upon the above two judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the evidence adduced by the prosecution would not establish the essential ingredients of cheating. Except oral version of P.Ws.1 to 4, there remains nothing to prove that P.W.1 parted with an amount of Rs.47,000/- to accused hoping that accused would provide a job to him at Saudi Arabia. No piece of paper is filed by the prosecution to 8 prove the same. Both the Courts below did not consider the defence of the accused that the contract between the petitioner (accused) and P.W.2 is that P.W.2 had to be sent to Gulf countries, for which P.W.2 had to meet the expenditure and it was acted upon, as such, there was no criminal intention to attract Section 420 of I.P.C. P.Ws.1 to 4 are the interested witnesses and no credence can be given to such evidence. The prosecution did not prove any written agreement between the petitioner and P.W.2 leave apart from the proof regarding so-called payment of Rs.47,000/- to the accused by P.W.2. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper way and went on to convict the accused, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.
12) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, sought to support the judgments of both the Courts below by contending that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is consistent. Their oral evidence is cogent to prove that P.W.2 paid a sum of Rs.47,000/- to the accused, as accused promised to P.W.2 to provide job at Saudi Arabia. The dishonest intention of the accused is quietly evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 as well as Ex.P.1 complaint lodged by P.W.1 and Ex.P.2-the letter addressed by P.W.2 from Saudi Arabia to P.W.1. Both the Courts 9 below rightly appreciated the evidence on record, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
13) This Court has gone through Section 420 of I.P.C. Section 420 of I.P.C. provides the offence of cheating. It runs as follows:
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
14) What is cheating is defined in Section 415 of I.P.C. It runs as follows:
415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ―cheat‖.
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
10
15) Having gone through the definition of cheating under Section 415 of I.P.C. and the offence of cheating under Section 420 of I.P.C. and further looking into the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of I.P.C., there must be a fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the person to induce the other party to part with amount or property. So, what the prosecution was supposed to establish is that accused made a false promise to P.W.2 with a dishonest intention and made P.W.2 to believe that accused would provide a job at Saudi Arabia and believing the inducement made by the accused, P.W.2 parted with amount and if such inducement is not there, he would not have parted with the amount and that accused did not provide any job as promised. If the evidence on record proves the above said aspect, definitely, it would attract the offence of cheating. Keeping in view, the evidence is to be appreciated.
16) Here, P.W.1 is the wife of P.W.2. P.W.2 is the victim in fact. The basis for P.W.1 to lodge Ex.P.1 complaint is Ex.P.2 letter received by her from P.W.2 from Saudi Arabia. Prosecution examined P.Ws.3 and 4 further in whose presence P.W.2 paid the so-called amount of Rs.47,000/- to the accused. 11
17) Now, turning to the testimony of P.W.1, she deposed that the accused is working in Telegraph department in Ongole. Her husband is a private electrician. About four years ago, her husband went to Saudi Arabia to secure job as an electrician at the instance of accused. Accused intimated to her husband that there is a job to her husband at Saudi Arabia in a company, for which he has to pay Rs.47,000/-. Her husband believed the words of the accused and paid the said amount. Accused gave visa to her husband to Saudi Arabia. He accompanied her husband up to Bombay and from there her husband went to Saudi Arabia by Air. Subsequently, she was told by her husband that the visa given to him is only a tour visa and there is no job in the company told by the accused and that he had no job and he cannot return to India. He also addressed a letter to her. Later, with the help of some persons at Saudi Arabia, her husband returned to India. After receiving information from her husband, she questioned the accused about his act and then he replied that he is not concerned about the job, etc. and his job ends by sending her husband to Saudi Arabia. He also told to her that her husband did not work there. Then, she gave report to police. Ex.P.1 is the report and Ex.P.2 is the letter received by her along with postal cover. 12
18) P.W.2 is no other than the victim i.e., the husband of P.W.1 and his evidence in substance is that he is a private electrician. He got acquaintance with the accused, who is a Messenger in Telegraphic Office. Accused induced him that he will get good income, if he go to Saudi Arabia and if he is able to spend Rs.47,000/-, he will send him to Saudi Arabia for a job. Believing the words of the accused, he (P.W.2), his father-in-law Mohiddin, Ismail Baig and Vahab went to the house of the accused with Rs.47,000/- in order to pay the same to him for getting a job in Saudi Arabia. On 15.06.1994 accused took him, his father-in-law and other persons to Bombay to send him to Saudi Arabia. They took a photograph along with the accused which is Ex.P.3. Ex.P.4 is the negative. Ex.P.5 is cover which was given along with the photo and negative by the photo studio people. He, accused and third person were also brought by the accused to send to Saudi Arabia. Ex.P.3 photograph was taken at Bombay. He started from Bombay to Alhasa (Saudi Arabia). Accused induced him and made him to believe that his father-in-law and his friends were in Saudi Arabia at Alhasa and they will look after job as an electrician. Ex.P.6 is the ticket issued by Air India to go to Dhahran Airport. From there he proceeded to Alhasa. Ex.P.7 is the Passport issued to him. One Meeravalli received him at Dhahran Airport and took him to his 13 room. He was there for four days. Later, he was taken to one Kapil. Later, he did not find Meeravalli. Kapil told him that there is no job for him. He forced him to work in the fields as a labour. Later, with the help of one Allabakshu, he returned back to India. He also addressed Ex.P.2 explaining the position. Ex.P.8 is the counter-foil of the return ticket. He would not have gone to Saudi Arabia, if the accused did not induce him regarding employment. Thus, he was cheated by the accused.
19) P.W.3 is father of P.W.1 and father-in-law of P.W.2, who spoken about the so-called inducement made to P.W.2 by the accused and further the payment of Rs.47,000/- to the accused in his presence by P.W.2. Similar is the evidence of P.W.4, who testified that P.W.2 told him that he is going to Gulf with the help of accused and about four years ago, he (P.W.4), P.W.2 and two others went to the house of accused and to pay Rs.47,000/- and he paid the amount to the accused for securing employment, etc. P.W.5 is the investigating officer.
20) On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, this Court would like to make it clear that literally the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is such that accused made a promise to P.W.2 to provide a job at Saudi Arabia, if he is able to spend Rs.47,000/- to him and believing the representation of the accused, P.W.2 paid the 14 amount to the accused. Admittedly, as evident from the defence of the accused i.e, from cross examination part, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not obtain any receipt whatsoever from the accused in token of the receipt of Rs.47,000/-, but the fact that prosecution party did not get any receipt from the accused, does not enable this Court to thrown out the case of prosecution. Prosecution sought to prove the guilt of the accused basing on the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 as well as Exs.P.1 to P.9. In judging the guilt against the accused, the defence of the accused is to be looked into by looking into the cross examination part.
21) Now, turning to the cross examination part of P.W.1, she deposed that she knows one Shaik Meeravalli, who is residing in their locality. She does not know whether he used to bring Visas and Passports for the persons who are intending to go to Saudi Arabia. They paid the amount to the accused at their house. She handed over a copy of Ex.P.2 to the police. She does not know whether the accused bore the medical and other expenses for sending P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia. She denied that one Meeravalli who is their neighbor brought Visa to her husband. She denied that they asked the advice of the accused prior to leaving of her husband to Saudi Arabia and as the accused gave advice, they filed a false case. She does not know whether her husband entered into 15 agreement with one Abdul Rahaman Almonsur to work under him for 600 riyals and whether her husband cancelled his agreement with the said Almonsur and entered into another agreement with another person for higher salary. She denied that she is deposing false.
22) The accused put forth a version before P.W.1 during the cross examination as to whether she had knowledge that accused bore the medical and other expenses for sending her husband to Saudi Arabia. It is to be noticed that if the accused is of such a person, who was concerned with a job as a Messenger in the Telegraph Department, he had no business to make arrangements for P.W.2 to bore the medical and other expenses by himself for sending P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia. Virtually, it is not as though accused has nothing to do with the issue of sending P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia.
23) Now, coming to the cross examination part of P.W.2, who is the crucial witness to the case of the prosecution, he deposed that he got acquaintance with the accused two months prior to his leaving to Saudi Arabia. He denied that he entered into agreement with one Abdul Rahaman Almonsur to work under him for 600 riyals. He volunteers that immediately after boarding at Dhahran Meeravalli obtained his signatures on some papers and he does not know for what he obtained those signatures. He took 16 signatures on a paper of which some matter was written in Arabic and English. He denied that Shaik Meeravalli is his close relative and he used to send people to Saudi Arabia and other countries and that he will look after the visas, etc.
24) Accused got elicited from the mouth of P.W.3 in cross examination that he does not remember whether he stated to police that one Meeravalli used to bring Passports, Visas to the persons who are intending to go to Saudi Arabia and that he used to hand over the said Passports and Visas to the accused and used to collect the amounts through the accused.
25) Accused got elicited from P.W.5, the investigating officer, during the cross examination that previously accused sent some persons to Middle East. He further got elicited that P.W.3 stated before him that Meeravalli gave Visas and Passports to Patan Jilani Khan (accused) and asked him to collect them from Jilani Khan and that P.W.3 stated before him that Meeravalli used to collect money through the accused. So, these answers that are elicited from the cross examination of P.Ws.3 and 5 goes to prove that Meeravalli used to collect the amounts from the accused as per statement of P.W.3 before the investigating officer.
26) Now, it is pertinent to look into the fact that the photograph under Ex.P.3 was not denied by the accused. So, 17 accused, P.W.2 and others were photographed at Bombay. During the course of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination, accused presented a categorical version that he accompanied P.W.2 and others to Bombay. The version of the accused in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination is self-explanatory. If the accused was not concerned with P.W.2's going to Saudi Arabia, he had no business to accompany P.W.2 to Bombay up to the Airport. The admissions made by the accused in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination can be looked into. So, the fact remained is that the accused accompanied P.W.2 and others to Bombay Airport.
27) It is crucial to look into the fact that a contention was advanced by the learned counsel for the accused before the trial Court that Meeravalli actually received the amount from the accused and that the said person was not examined. This contention is in tune with the statement of P.W.3 before the investigating officer. It is to be noticed that even in the grounds of Revision, the contention of the petitioner is that the contract between him and P.W.2 was only to send him to Saudi Arabia and the movement, P.W.2 was sent to Saudi Arabia, there remains nothing on the part of the petitioner. It is to be noticed that according to Ex.P.6, the ticket issued by Air India to P.W.2 to go to Saudi Arabia, it costs about Rs.11,705/- inclusive of all taxes. This 18 Court has no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. The accused virtually admitted by virtue of his defence before the prosecution witnesses and by virtue of his contention before the trial Court and by virtue of the grounds of Revision that he received certain amount. According to P.Ws.1 to 4, it was Rs.47,000/-. Now, it is for the accused to explain how he was supposed to receive the amount when he was working as a Messenger so as to facilitate to sending of P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia.
28) As seen from Ex.P.2, the letter addressed by P.W.2 to P.W.1, P.W.2 alleged that accused cheated him with a false promise. He also alleged that Meeravalli at Saudi Arabia was also cheated him. Unfortunately, the investigating officer did not look into the role of the said Meeravalli. However, the fact remained is that it is the accused to handle the issue at India in sending P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia. If his duty was only sent to P.W.2 to Saudi Arabia and he had nothing to do with the job, he would not have received an amount of Rs.47,000/-. The amount of Rs.47,000/-, in my considered view, was not exclusively meant for travelling and Visa expenses. Even after excluding the traveling expenses of Rs.11,705/-and Visa expenses if any, there would be substantial amount with the accused, for which the accused did not explain as to what purpose it was meant for.
19
29) Coming to Exs.D.1 and D.2 marked during the course of cross examination of P.Ws.3 and 4, Ex.D.1 is to the effect that Meeravalli told to him that he brought Visa and handed over to accused. Ex.D.2 is to the effect that on 19.06.1994 during night, the amount was given to the accused.
30) In this regard, this Court would like to make it clear that Exs.D.1 and D.2 are not confronted with P.W.5, the investigating officer. P.Ws.3 and 4 during the cross examination stated that they did not state to police as in Exs.D.1 and D.2 respectively. So, as those are not put to P.W.5 during cross examination to prove that P.Ws.3 and 4 stated before him as in Exs.D.1 and D.2, they cannot be considered.
31) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence on record amply proves the fact that accused with a dishonest intention induced P.W.2 to part with a sum of Rs.47,000/- on the pretext of providing employment at Saudi Arabia and believing the same, P.W.2 paid that amount and accused did not keep up his promise. Accused suggested to P.W.1 during the cross examination that her husband did not work at Saudi Arabia. He also got negative answers from P.W.2 during cross examination as if he entered into agreement with somebody and failed to work there. How accused 20 had knowledge of all these facts which were said to be happened at Saudi Arabia, is not explained by him. In my considered view, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is convincing and prosecution established the essential ingredients of cheating with consistent evidence. Both the Courts below broadly looked into the evidence and arrived at a just conclusion. The judgments of both the Courts below show that they considered the evidence on record i.e., oral as well as documentary. With the evidence available on record, no further conclusions could be possible other than a conclusion that the prosecution established the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
32) Hence, I see no reason to set aside the judgment of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole, in dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998. However, it is also the contention of the petitioner that the sentence imposed against the petitioner is excessive. This Court has duly looked into the same. Admittedly, the petitioner was aged about 31 years at the time of conviction in C.C.No.194 of 1996. Later, he filed Criminal Appeal before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole and the Criminal Revision Case before this Court. The Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioner is 21 pending about 14 years. Now the petitioner (accused) must have in the age group of 58 to 60.
33) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I feel that the ends of justice will meet, if the sentence is modified by reducing the same to 06 (six) months instead of one year.
34) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner as that of 06 (six) months as against one year and the rest of the judgment of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole, dated 04.12.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1998, shall stands confirmed.
35) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner and to report compliance to this Court.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 25.01.2023.
PGR 22 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRL. REVISION CASE NO.1135 OF 2008 Date: 25.01.2023 PGR