SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1553

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR
Ponnuswamy - Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police - Respondents
Crl.R.C.No.231 of 2004
Decided On : 28 June 2006

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:T.S. Gopalan, Advocate. For the Respondent:N. Kumanan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

Interest of justice would be met by letting off convicted petitioner instead of sending him to prison.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Sections 408 and 477 (A) - Probation of Offenders Act (20 of 1958), Section 4 - Misappropriation of money-Conviction-Release on probation of good conduct -Entire amount was repaid - Interest of justice would be met by letting off convicted petitioner instead of sending him to prison - Conviction set aside.

       

Judgment :-

(This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Vellore dated 14.9.1999 in C.C.No.11 of 1997 and confirmed in appeal by the judgment dated 28.11.2003 of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vellore, (Fast Track Court, Vellore) Vellore District, in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 1999.)

This revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offences under Section 408 and 477(A) (3 counts) I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment for each count and directed the sentence to run concurrently, which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was working as an attender in the Marudhadu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. When he was employed during 27.2.1987 to 31.12.1991, it was alleged that the accused misappropriated cash and stock to a total value of Rs.21,050.10/- and prepared false records and thus committed the offence as alleged.

3. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.14 were examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.32 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

4. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore convicted the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months on each count for the offence under Sections 408 and 477A (3 counts) and to suffer the imprisonment concurrently.

5. The co-accused A.2 was acquitted in the trial. The petitioner preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 1999 before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, who heard the appeal and dismissed the same, confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision.

6. Mr.V.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though there are certain grounds to agitate for the acquittal of the accused, he is restraining his arguments to the sentence imposed on the petitioner on the ground that even assuming that there are misappropriations said to have been caused by the petitioner, the entire amount has been repaid by the petitioner even before the judgment was delivered by the trial Court.

7. He has produced documents to show that on 18.3.1993, the petitioner paid Rs.7,770/-; on 7.4.1994 paid Rs.7522/- and on 18.2.1998 paid Rs.5754/-, totalling a sum of Rs.21,046/-, but that judgment was delivered only on 14.9.1999. P.W.11 a clerk of the society would admit that because of the alleged misappropriation, there was no loss caused to the society because alleged loss has been made good by the petitioner.

8. The trial Court also at paragraph 33 of its judgment has confirmed that the petitioner has already repaid the entire amount.

9. Mr.V.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service two judgments of this Court reported in (1990 L.W. Crl 172) K.SOMASUNDARAM V. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE and (2000 (3) MWN (Cr) 133) SHANMUGAM & OTHERS V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCIW (CID).

10. In (1990 L.W. Crl 172), the learned brother Arunachalam J. has held as follows:

8. On facts, the entrustment having been established and the retention, which was deemed to be dishonest in view of the production of Exhibits P.18 to P.22, the guilt of the petitioner has to be taken to have been established, though only for an offence under S. 406, I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner fervently pleads that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, Central Act XX of 1958, could be invoked in view of the petitioner having made good the amount along with interest long before the lodging of the complaint. It appears that the petitioner as well as his father were associated with this Co-operative Society for several years and the record had been clean. Unfortunately, the petitioner had involved himself in the com






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top