ORDER:

This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 06.01.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2008 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Guntur at Narasaraopet, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C in the judgment dated 30.06.2008 in C.C.No.213 of 2004 passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda.

2. The shorn of necessary facts are as follows:

a) The petitioner herein was a fair price shop dealer at Vayyakalu, Savalyapuram Mandal and he also possessed kerosene license. His license was valid upto 31.03.2005. He received 237.80 quintals of rice from Civil Supplies Department to be distributed to the workers working under various schemes of the Government and he had to keep the stock in the godown. The petitioner took demand draft for supply of 31.50 quintals of rice. The remaining stock of 206.30 quintals of rice has to be kept in his godown. The construction of gram panchayat building was cancelled. The Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department issued coupons to the workers, who are in part of construction of culvert. When they presented the said coupons, the petitioner did not give rice to the workers and misappropriated the said 206.30 quintals of rice.

b) On inspection, the Revenue Inspector (PW.2) and Village Revenue Officer (PW.4), detected the same and submitted a report to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Savalyapuram(PW.1), who in turn lodged a complaint before the police.

3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of the petitioner, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

4. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the petitioner/accused found guilty of the charge under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.214 of 2008, before the Court of learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Guntur at Narasaraopet and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

6. Against the said judgment of the Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner/accused.

7. Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri Dheera Kanishk, learned counsel attached to the office of the State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. The point advanced in this case by Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the trial court as well the lower appellate court failed to appreciate that there was any misappropriation said to have been done in the hands of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that both the trial court as well as the sessions court erred in not giving legal reasoning for convicting the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that both the courts based on presumptions on surmises and the conjectures gave the conviction without finding any material on record to make believe that the accused committed an offence misappropriation. The prosecution did not place any material relating to the accounts or stock register and the trial court as well the sessions court without verifying the material placed, concluded that the accused committed the offence under section 409 IPC and convicted him which is against law and the principle envisaged under Section 409 IPC.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State, relying on the judgment in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander1, submits that the findings of facts recorded by the trial court not to be altered by revisional court merely because another view on the same evidence is possible when factual appreciation is involved, then