Case Note & Summary
The case involves three criminal revision petitions filed by the petitioners against their conviction under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating. The petitioners were convicted by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Huvina Hadagali in C.C. No. 482/2008 dated 10.06.2010, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 with default clause. The appeals filed by the petitioners before the Fast Track Court-III, Hospet in Criminal Appeal Nos. 58/2010 and 59/2011 were dismissed on 07.07.2011, confirming the conviction. The petitioners then approached the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence. The prosecution case was that the petitioners induced the complainant to part with money on the false promise of providing employment abroad. The trial court and the appellate court, after appreciating the evidence, found the petitioners guilty. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, examined the records and found that the courts below had concurrently held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court noted that the revisional court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a patent illegality or perversity. The court found no such illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. The evidence of the complainant and other witnesses was consistent and credible. Minor contradictions did not affect the core of the prosecution case. The High Court held that the conviction was sustainable and dismissed the revision petitions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Interference - The revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and can interfere only if there is a patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. Concurrent findings of fact based on credible evidence are not to be disturbed. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating - Section 420 IPC - Ingredients - The prosecution must prove that the accused induced the complainant to deliver property by deception, and that the accused had dishonest intention at the time of inducement. In the present case, the evidence of the complainant and witnesses established that the petitioners induced the complainant to part with money on false promise of providing employment abroad. (Paras 11-20) C) Evidence - Credibility of Witnesses - Minor contradictions do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses to be trustworthy. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable and whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all three criminal revision petitions, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited
- concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse
- Section 420 IPC ingredients of cheating established by evidence
