IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Revisional court can interfere with findings of fact of lower court when they are perverse and not merely when another view is also possible.
(2) Deciding an appeal without appreciating evidence is erroneous and such order is liable to be set aside – Bare suspicions cannot replace proof – In criminal matters, standard of proof is one beyond reasonable doubt.

ORDER

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.—This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by Revisionist against the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed against the him in C.C.No.148/1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chinthalapudi, dated 08.10.2002, (Hereinafter ‘trial court’) confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.162/2002 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, dated 07.03.2006 (Hereinafter ‘Appellate Court’).

2. The Revision Petitioner herein was the Accused No.2before the trial Court. The Respondent herein was the Complainant/State, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor. For sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Case of prosecution in nutshell, is that,

a. A Sericulture Unit was started at Makkenavari Gudem, to develop sericulture activities among the tribals. Accused No.2 was the Manager of Godavari Grameena Bank, Makkenavari Gudem, which extended loans for the said purpose, sponsored by Andhra Bank. Accused Nos.,2 and 3 identified 18 beneficiaries among the tribal community, to undertake sericulture activities, during February, 1989. As per the scheme, each beneficiary was to receive a sum of Rs.10,500/- including subsidy and margin money.

b. On 15.05.1990, PW.1/Deputy Director of Sericulture, Eluru conducted inspection and found A-1/Officer of Sericulture Unit has got a saving bank account in his name is in the bank of A-2. The loan amount of Rs.1,06,800/- which was drawn from the bank was credited to his account. A-1 withdrew that amount and failed to disperse it among the beneficiaries and misappropriated the same. Basing on the report made by PW.1 to the Superintendent of Police, a crime was registered against A1 to A3, by PW.13, on 22.09.1991.

c. In the investigation of Inspector of Police, Chinthalapudi P.S., it was revealed that, A2 being the Manager, got released loans, subsidies and margin money to the 18 beneficiaries. A1 selected the said beneficiaries. A2 appropriated an amount of Rs.58000/- to his personal use. Under the guidance of A2, A1 and A3 attested all the financial transactions relating to the beneficiaries. A3 has attested the withdrawal slips of the beneficiaries to show that they have received the cash. The beneficiaries being Scheduled Tribe Koyas, do not know the transactions, and were not well-versed with the affairs of the bank. The accused thus, conspired together, cheated the people, and misappropriated the cash.

4. The trial court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120(b) against A1 to A3 and charges were framed accordingly. The accused adjured from guilt and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.15 were the witnesses examined. Ex.P1 to P28 were the documents marked. Accused denied incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and did not choose to place any evidence on their behalf.

6. After trial, learned trial Judge found A-3 not guilty for the charges levelled against him and found A-1 and A-2 guilty for the charges under Sections 409, 420, 120(b) of I.P.C. Accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 120(b) of I.P.C. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

7. Challenging the validity and correctness of the trial Court judgment, accused preferred respective appeals, vide Criminal Appeal Nos.161 of 2002 and 162 of 2002. In these appeals, the Appellate Court