Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, J.
Sudesh Kumar S/o B. Seenappa - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Karnataka By Koppa Police Station - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 703 OF 2011
Decided On : 10-12-2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 477, 408 – Falsification of accounts – Endorsements – Judgment of conviction – Criminal revision petition is filed by petitioner challenging judgment rendered by Presiding Officer, dismissing appeal and confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by trial Court in C.C. – By said order Trial Court had sentenced accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-for offence punishable under Section 408 IPC and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-for offence punishable under Section 477A IPC and both sentences were to run concurrently. – Appellate Court by order directed Trial Court to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-to PW.1 Ramesha Acharya as reward out of fine amount of Rs.2,000/. – To that extent, operative portion of judgment of trial Court was modified. – Held, Essential ingredients of Section 408 IPC as regards dishonest misappropriation has not been established by prosecution by putting forth cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence. – Though PW1 to PW10 have been subjected to examination and cross-examination, prosecution has mainly banked upon evidence of PW1, PW8, PW9 and PW10 in order to convict accused for offences under Sections 408 and 477A of IPC. – But Section 477A deals with ‘falsification of accounts’. – But scope of this section only requires falsification of accounts with intent to defraud. – Willfully as used in Section 477A IPC means intentionally or deliberately. – But accused who was working as a Post Master at Kachkal Branch Post Office had received money from depositors and had not credited same to SB / RD Accounts maintained by them and said amounts were said to be misappropriated by him. It is this allegation that is made in complaint at Exhibit P19. – But however, accused had deposited misappropriated amounts to tune of Rs.5,466/. – Accused was clearly acting in capacity as a Post Master. – But judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC 2211 (supra) squarely applies to present case on hand – Court is of opinion that prosecution has not put forth positive, corroborative and cogent evidence in order to prove guilt of accused. – Prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Since said evidence has not been appreciated by trial court as well as appellate court in a proper perspective, it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. – Court is of opinion that benefit of doubt needs to be extended to petitioner. – Interest of justice would be subserved if any substantial punishment is not awarded. However, fine imposed by Trial Court shall be kept intact – Revision Petition Allowed In Part
ORDER :
This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 24.03.2006 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court – II, Chikmagalur dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in C.C.No.578/1994 dated 17.12.1999. By the said order dated 17.12.1999, the Trial Court had sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 477A IPC and both the sentences were to run concurrently. The Appellate Court by order dated 24.03.2006 directed the Trial Court to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-to PW.1 Ramesha Acharya as reward out of the fine amount of Rs.2,000/. To that extent, the operative portion of the judgment of the trial Court was modified.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is as follows:
The accused – petitioner herein was appointed as Post Master of Kachakal Post Office as on 14.07.1988 and since then, he was doing the duty as such in the said post office. The petitioner while discharging his duties in the said office during the period from 29.10.1989 to 23.10.1992, is said to have withdrawn the following sums of money from the following account numbers: a sum of Rs.40/from out of the R.D.Book bearing No.117358 pertaining to P.W.2 – Yogendra; a sum of Rs.817/from out of the R.D.Book of P.W.3Smt.Jainabi bearing No.842865; a sum of Rs.1065/from out of the R.D.Book bearing No.846068 pertaining to PW.4 Smt.Sunanda; a sum of Rs.1,500/from out of the R.D.Book bearing No.842231 pertaining to PW.5 – T.T.Govindegowda and he also withdrew a sum of Rs.500/from the R.D.Book bearing 842231 by getting the withdrawal form signed by PW.5 Govindegowda. In respect of the above transactions, the accused had not made any endorsements in the concerned books of accounts and thus, in all he is said to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,922/.
Further, it is stated P.W.1Ramesha Acharya, who is the Sub-Divisional Inspector, Koppa Postal Sub Division, when inspected the post office at Kachakal, had found the mistakes committed by the accused during the said period and lodged a complaint with the Koppa Police Station, along with annexures requesting the police to take suitable legal action against the accused. On receipt of the complaint, the Koppa police registered a case in Crime No.86/1993 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 477A IPC and had sent the FIR to the JMFC, Koppa. During the course of investigation, statements of accused and witnesses were recorded, necessary documents were seized and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the trial Court in C.C.No.578/1994.
After appearance of accused, charges were framed, read over and explained to the accused, but the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all ten witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10 and documents as per Exs.P1 to P28 were got marked. The trial Court after hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides, passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo SI for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo SI for a period of three months. Further, the accused was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo SI for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 477 (A) of IPC.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.4/2000 before the lower Appellate Court. The Appe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
