K SADANAND NAIDU Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANDHRA PRADESH
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is an unfortunate case of a parent having found his son disappeared or missing; in his anxiety to get his son back he responded to a call made over a telephone to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- at the place indicated, so as to get an appropriate information about where he could find his son but in the bargain he was cheated.
(2.)On 31.3.1990 PW 1 G. Vinod, father of victim G. Vikas found his son missing. He received a call that his son would be released on payment of Rs. 50,0007- which he was instructed to place in a dustbin near Subhash Talkies, Premnagar, hyderabad where he would be given the address in an envelope of the place where he could find his son and the time indicated was 10 p. m. Though PW 1 informed the police about it, he requested them not to interfere in the matter as he was anxious to get back his son. He carried Rs. 50. 000/- in 100 rupee note denomination in his car in a plastic bag and left that bag inside the said dustbin and there he found an envelope containing the address as flat no. 23 in 'c' block in Sangam Towers. When he went to that place with his wife he could not locate that place and there was no such place at all. Thereafter, he received several calls demanding more amount and he also went to different places, but all his exercise became futile.
(3.)On a complaint being lodged, the police registered a case and the matter was investigated. The prosecution examined ten witnesses of whom PW 2 and PW 3 are the persons whose telephones the appellant is stated to have used. One K. Nagarjuna, police constable examined as pw4 merely stated that he was deputed to tap the conversation on the telephone of the complainant in the case and he recorded the conversation received but he was unable to state from which telephone he had received the calls. Not only that PW 4, was not able to identify the voice of the caller. The next important witness is PW 8 B. Sai Prakash - hand writing expert to whom the writing that was found on the envelope was sent along with the standard writing of appellant. He compared the specimen with the disputed document and found that the two writings tallied with each other. However, the learned magistrate, before whom the charge sheet had been made, took the view that there is no connecting link between the accused and the money being taken and, therefore, the charge against him that he had cheated PW 1 under section 420 of IPC was not established and acquitted the appellant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.