The Court upheld the conviction and sentence for criminal misappropriation under Section 408 of IPC, emphasizing the importance of entrustment and the duty of an employee to work with devotion when financial responsibilities are entrusted.

ORDER :

These two revision petitions are considered together since, both the complainant and the accused and the charges leveled are one and the same in both the criminal revision petitions. The judgment of conviction and sentence against which the present criminal revision petitions are filed are also delivered on the same day independently.

2. These criminal revision petitions are filed challenging the judgments passed in Criminal Case Nos.52/1998 and 53/1998 dated 19.12.2009, wherein, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and the same has been challenged in Crl.A.Nos.6/2010 and 7/2010 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge at Mysuru, wherein the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.04.2012.

3. The factual matrix of the case in Criminal Case No.52/1998 is that charge has been framed against the petitioner herein for committing an offence of Section 408 of IPC when he was working as Secretary of Halu Utpadakara Sangha, wherein he has misappropriated an amount of Rs.18,473/-as per the audit report for the year 1991-92.

4. The factual matrix of the case in Criminal Case No.53/1998 is that charge has been framed against the petitioner herein for committing an offence of Section 408 of IPC when he was working as Secretary of Halu Utpadakara Sangha, wherein he has misappropriated an amount of Rs.27,706.36/-as per the audit report for the year 1993-1994 till 20.04.1993 and he has not handed over the cash in hand to the President of the institution and there was an endorsement to that effect.

5. In Criminal Case No.52/1998, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P39. The petitioner has not led any defence evidence and he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.6/2010 and the Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

6. In Criminal Case No.53/1998, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P38. The petitioner has not led any defence evidence and he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.7/2010 and the Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed in Criminal Case No.52/1998 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.6/2010, Criminal Revision Petition No.588/2012 is filed. The main contention of the petitioner is that, misappropriation was found in the year 1991 to 1992 and the ARCS has passed the orders to file criminal complaint in the year 1994 and the complaint has been filed on 31.01.1996 and there was a delay and the same has not been properly explained.

8. The counsel would also submit that both the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge has observed that the witnesses P.Ws.2, 9, 10 and 11 are very important witnesses and the fact that the accused was working as Secretary of the Saligrama Milk Producers Co-operative Society is not in dispute. The