Misappropriation of public funds by a postal official established through evidence, leading to conviction under IPC Sections 406 and 409.

Heard the Amicus Curie for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that based on the complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner herein that he was working as a J.D.S. Post Master at Athuru-Nalluru Branch Post Office from 20.06.2008 to 26.11.2012. During the said period, the petitioner has accepted deposits from C.Ws.4 to 9 and brother of C.W.10, in respect of their savings accounts to the tune of Rs.1,40,200/- and also made entries in their respective passbooks. The petitioner had maintained the Registers in the Post Office according to his whims and fancies and also utilized the said deposits for his personal use. Hence, he has misappropriated the said money deposited by C.Ws.4 to 9 and brother of C.W.10 and cheated the Postal Department and others.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by C.W.1, the police have registered the case and investigated the matter and charge-sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 409 , 420 and 468 of IPC . The accused was secured, he did not plead guilty, hence, the prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P39(a). The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and he denied all incriminating circumstances put to him.

4. The Trial Court, having considered the material on record, acquitted the revision petitioner. Hence, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.86/2015. The First Appellate Court formulated the points based on the grounds urged whether the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 409 , 420 and 468 of IPC is legal and valid and whether it calls for interference and answered point No.1 as ‘partly affirmative’ convicting the accused only for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 409 of IPC and in respect of other offence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the First Appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

5. The Amicus Curie for the petitioner in his argument would vehemently contend that the Trial Court acquitted the accused though he had immediately deposited the amount of Rs.1,40,200/- and also there was delay of 8 months in lodging the complaint and there was no complaint by the depositors and the said reasoning was reversed by the First Appellate Court erroneously by believing the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 to 7. P.W.2 is the Inspector of Post Offices, P.W.10 is the Superintendent of Post Offices and P.W.12 is the Inspector of the Post Offices, who investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet and though complaint was lodged after 8 months, the said aspect has not been considered by the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in re- appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Hence, it requires interference.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently contend that the amount misused by the petitioner is to the tune of Rs.1,40,200/- and the same is for the period from 2008-2012 and the prosecution also relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, who is the depositor and P.Ws.4 to 7 are the depositors and they gave the evidence that they have deposited the amount and entries are not found in the records maintained by the Post Office and particularly taken note of Exs.P29 to P34 and also considered the passbooks and S.B. Journal Ledger Exs.P4 to P6 as well as daily account registers Exs.P7 and Ex.P8 and not taken entry with regard to amount of Rs.1,40,200/- and the same has been considered by the First Appellate Court, particularly in Para No.21. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate Court.

7. Having heard the Amicus Curie for the petition