Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Pandurangan – Appellant
Versus
State, By Station House Officer, CCIW/CID Villupuram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and charges against the petitioner (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments by petitioner and prosecution regarding misappropriation (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. analysis of evidence and confirmation of guilt (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. modification of sentence based on circumstances (Para 12) |
| 5. final decision to partly allow the revision (Para 13) |
ORDER :
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.301 of 2003 was convicted by the trial Court by the judgment dated 08.09.2015 along with another accused for offences under Sections 408 , 471 and 477(A) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence. Aggrieved against his conviction, the petitioner/A1, preferred an appeal in C.A.No.44 of 2015 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Villupuram. The learned Sessions Judge, by the judgment dated 10.10.2018, partly allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offence under Sections 471 and 477(A) of I.P.C. and confirming the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 408 of I.P.C. against which, the present revision
The conviction for misappropriation under Section 408 of IPC is upheld, but the sentence is modified to the time already served due to the petitioner's age and health condition.
The prosecution must establish a prima facie case with grave suspicion against the accused, and the element of mens rea and intention must accompany the culpable act or conduct of the accused.
The court upheld the conviction for cheating, modifying the sentence to two years, affirming that actions characterized as business transactions can constitute criminal deceit when misrepresentation ....
The prosecution must establish misappropriation, but once entrustment is proven, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the handling of the property.
Temporary sales shortage remitted next day does not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC.
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
