CHILAKA CHANDRA MOULI REDDY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
LAWS(CHH)-2020-1-151
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on January 28,2020

Chilaka Chandra Mouli Reddy Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant,J. - (1.)This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.07.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.25/2019 by which the judgment and sentence imposed upon the applicant in Criminal Case No.1156/2017 dated 08.04.2019 was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
(2.)The applicant and others were charged with offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.along with Section 4 and 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.It was alleged that between November 2016 to February 2017, an office was established at Jagdalpur Styled as Fortune Media I.T.Solutions Company.A publicity was made regarding the scheme, that for the work of sending S.M.S.for various online companies, the persons concerned shall be given a commission of 40 Paisa per S.M.S.The complainant Rajkumar Mandan applied for the job who was given an I.D.on payment of fees and other charges against which he initially received commission.The complainant then kept on recharging and he made deposits in total of Rs.3,50,000/- for renewing his I.D.Similarly, other affected persons also applied for the job, obtained I.D.and made deposits for renewal of I.D.and a total amount of Rs.20-25 lakh were deposited.It is alleged that after taking all the deposits, the applicant and others closed down their offices on 03.02.2017 and their whereabouts were not found.After lodging of F.I.R., the police investigated the case, in which it was found that the company Fortune Media I.T.Solutions Company was not a registered company, therefore, the business advertised by them by sending Short Message Services was not a recognized service.On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.After framing charges against the applicant and others, the trial was held and the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.and sentenced with R.I.for 3 years, 5 years, 3 years and 01 year respectively along with fine of Rs.25,000/- in each with default stipulations and Sections 4 and 5 of Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and sentenced with R.I.for 01 year each along with fine of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively with default stipulations, which has been upheld by the impugned judgment in appeal.
(3.)It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the judgment of conviction and sentence against the applicant by the Courts below is totally erroneous, illegal and improper.The applicant was not named in the written complaint dated 03.02.2017 given in Ex.P/30, which mentions the name of the other accused persons who gave inducements to the complainant and others on which the complainant and others made deposits.The name of the applicant has appeared in the statement of the witnesses recorded later on under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.and that to only this extent that this applicant need to visit the office for checking the accounts.The witnesses for prosecution have also very clearly stated that co-accused Krishnakant Patil was the proprietor of the company, who and the managers of the company were persons who gave inducements to the complainant and others.At the most, it can be held that the applicant was one of the employee of the main accused employed for verifying the accounts.Therefore, he cannot be said to have drawn any benefit from the offence committed.It is also submitted that there is no evidence to show that the applicant had been a proprietor, partner or associate of the said company.Therefore, the conviction against the applicant is erroneous and illegal, which is bad in law.Therefore, it is prayed that revision be allowed and the applicant be acquitted.It is submitted further that if this Court is not inclined to allow the revision petition, then looking to the length of detention of the applicant in jail, which is also 2 years and 7 months, the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period of detention already undergone by him in jail.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.