The court upheld the conviction for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC, emphasizing the prosecution's proof beyond reasonable doubt and the right to a speedy trial.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 11.08.2008 in Crl.A.No.135 of 2006 on the file of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), of Guntur at Narasaraopet, confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’) and sentencing the petitioner to Simple Imprisonment for two (2) years while setting aside the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 420 of ‘the IPC.,’ passed by the learned II Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Gurazala, in C.C.No.42 of 2004 vide judgment dated 02.03.2006.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Mr. S.Dilip Jaya Ram, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 was inconsistent with the contents of the Ex.P-1; the prosecution could not prove the ingredients under Section 409 of ‘the IPC.,’ beyond all reasonable doubt; there is inconsistency in between the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 vis-a-vis P.W.5. Exs.D1 to D3 was sufficient to falsify the story of the prosecution. Ex.P-2 receipt was found missing and Ex.P-4 was not in handwriting of the petitioner and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case.

4. Alternatively, he submitted that the petitioner is aged about more than 67 years right now. He was a linemen and aged about 50 years and the alleged offence was committed in the year 2001. Nearly 24 years have passed. The petitioner was removed from the service, but later on his appeal before the appropriate authority, he was asked to retire voluntarily; right of speedy justice guaranteed in favor of the petitioner by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated. The petitioner was already in the incarceration for more than 18 days as convict prisoner. The alleged amount involved in misappropriation was only Rs.12,331/- and urged to show leniency in sentencing the petitioner. It is volunteered that the petitioner may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as a measure of penance. The petitioner was not even paid subsistence allowance during his suspension period as per the rules; and he is also not getting any pension.

5. Per contra Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 409 of ‘the IPC’. The learned Trial Court and also the Appellate Court felt that the evidence of prosecution witnesses inspired confidence. There was no inconsistency in between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case, inasmuch as there were no material irregularities or misreading of evidence.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.135 of 2006, dated 11.08.2008, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) of Guntur at Narasaraopet, is correct, legal and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

8. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the petitioner got examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and on behalf of the petitioner/accused Ex.D1 to D3 were marked. On careful perusal of the contradictions marked under Exs.D1 to D3 in the 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ statements of P.W.4 are not material contradictions which would smash the case of the prosecution.

9. As per Ex.P-1 complaint the Divisional Electrical Engineer Operations, Macherla (PW-1) mentioned that receipts bearing serial Nos.146471 to 146490 were found missing from the book and that the As