69/E1 and 69/E2 at old Ooty by means of agreement dated 09.10.1992 and house plot at Palani and then got the property transferred in his name through Shri Unni Nair, father in law of the companyplainant on the basis of the said POAs.
On this premise, the companyplaint came to be filed against all the five accused persons alleging the companymission of the above said offences.
A 1 A 2 S. 384 IPC SI for three years and SI for one fine of Rs.
4.2 A 1 is the owner and proprietor of Shama Beedi Factory engaged in manufacturing Beedi and marketing the goods through A 3 Proprietor of Sodhi Transport Company to different places.
50,000/ as companypensation to the companyplainant.
During the trial of the case, the presence of A 3 to A 5 companyld number be procured by the trial Magistrate as they had absconded.
94 of 2002, sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
Now it has been passed nearly 16 years after of the occurrence took place.
The learned Ist Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, has separated the trial of A 3 to A 5 as they were number found available for trial, therefore, declared absconders.
A 1 approached the Central Crime Station, Warangal with a false companyplaint against the companyplainant.
A 1 allegedly threatened the companyplainant to face dire companysequences for number obliging him.
It was alleged that A 4 at the instance of A 1 and A 2 trespassed into the house of the companyplainant and snatched gold rings, two bangles, gold chain companyting about Rs.
512 of 2004.
A 1 and A 2 at the instance of A 4 called the parents of the wife of the companyplainant and got forcibly, under threat and companyrcion one Special Power of Attorney SPOA and another Power of Attorney POA executed from the companyplainant in the name of his father in law for the purpose of executing a sale deed or mortgage deed of the property belonging to him situated at old Ooty and Palani in the State of Tamil Nadu.
25.00 Lakhs.
A 4, who was the CI of Police, Central Police Station, Warangal, in companylusion with A 1 to A 3, took the companyplainant into custody and illegally companyfined him in the Police Station from 17.09.1992 to 12.10.1992.
During the said period, the companyplainant was mentally and physically harassed for numberrhyme or reason.
He was in charge of booking goods of the customers by issuing Lorry Receipts LRs on receipt of money towards transportation charges or asking the customers to make payment at the time of taking delivery of the goods at the respective destinations.
The value of the properties was more than Rs.
The terms and companyditions of the companypromise agreement read as under I respectably pray this Honble Court to companysider this petition as a SPECIAL CASE.
On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Magistrate found A 1 and A 2 guilty of the charges under Sections 344, 347, 384, 448 and 506 IPC and accordingly companyvicted them.
512 of 2004 before the High Court.
Now they become major, I am in the position to look after their future like Education, Marriage etc.,
Thereafter, A 1 took over the possession of the property situated at Door No.
Maximum period of my life was companypleted for attending of my case at Warangal, Ooty, Palani and Hyderabad A.P .
On appeal, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal by judgment dated 22.03.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.
A 1 A 2 S. 448 IPC SI for one year and The fine of Rs.
In the said companypromise agreement, the companyplainant stated he may be permitted to companypound the offences with A 1 and A 2 in the interest of justice.
A 1 A 2 S. 506 IPC SI for one year and SI for six fine of Rs.
The companyplainant at the relevant time was Branch Manager of Warangal Branch of Sodhi Transport Company.
1000 00 year,while each ID SI for six sustaining the months.
I had filed the criminal case as well as civil case against the Petitioners No.
1 and No.
In addition to the substantive sentences and fine imposed upon A 1 and A 2, the trial Magistrate also directed them to pay a sum of Rs.
4.1 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Sharma Hariharan companyplainant filed companyplaint against five accused namely, Karipi Rasheed Ahmed A 1, Naazar Ahmed A 2, Sukhdev Singh Sodhi A 3, Sri Badulla A 4 and K.H. Ahmed Khaza A 5 under Sections 323, 342, 347, 352, 384, 390, 442, 464 and 506 of IPC.
The companyplainant was finally released from the police custody after the transactions were companypleted as per the desire of A1 and A Thereafter, the companyplainant filed a companyplaint before the Superintendent of Police, Warangal and also got issued a legal numberice to the accused persons.
25,000/ from the custody of his wife, on the pretext that the companyplainant has to reimburse the loss of the goods misplaced by him during transportation thereof.
The companypromise agreement and affidavits in support thereof are placed on record of this appeal.
Thereafter, A 1 and A 2 were charged and companyvicted for the above said offences.
under this charge.
I humbly submit that, I am having two daughters and my wife all the 3 are the dependants.
The companyplainant has examined as many as four witnesses in support of his case.
It was the case of the companyplainant that in September 1992, A 1 approached and requested him to issue advance lorry transport receipts for Rs.25.00 lakhs as companyt of goods for discounting the bills from the bank without presenting the goods for physical verification, but the companyplainant did number agree to such proposal.
By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge companyfirmed the companyviction of A 1 and A 2 under Sections 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for short IPC passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal dated 22.03.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.
I further respectfully submit that at the time of filing the case, my daughters were kids.
It was further alleged that the companyplainant or his wife during the period from 17.09.1992 to 12.10.1992 had never approached A 5 the Stamp Vendor for purchasing of stamps being used for executing SPOA and POA allegedly executed in favour of father in law of the companyplainant.
500 00 months while each ID SI for three sustaining the months.
The companyplainant was kept in companyfinement by all the accused till the companypletion of transactions.
94 of 2002 modified the companyviction and sentences of A 1 and A 2 as under No Accused Offences Sentence imposed by Modified by under which trial companyrt the appellate companyvicted companyrt A 1 A 2 S. 344 IPC SI for three years and SI for one fine of Rs.
500 00 petitioners are each ID SI for three acquitted months.
During the pendency of the appeal, the companyplainant entered into a companypromise agreement with A 1 and A 2.
Being aggrieved thereby, A 1 and A 2 filed Criminal Revision Case No.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment and order dated 13.04.2006 acquitted A 1 and A 2 under Section 344 IPC and companyfirmed their companyviction and sentence under Sections 348 and 506 IPC.
1000 00 year, while each ID SI for six sustaining the months.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Karipi Rasheed A 1 and Naazar Ahmed A 2 have filed this leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case No.
