1. Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard Sri. Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Sri V. S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the records.

3. This Revision Petition is filed by the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C. C. No. 194/2008, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kanna by Judgment dated 28.06.2014, whereby he has been convicted for the offences punishable under S.406, S.408 and S.420 IPC, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 171/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore by judgment dated 06.07.2018.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Upon a complaint lodged by Margadarshi Chits (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore alleging that the accused being entrusted to collect the amount from the members and issue temporary receipts and tune of Rs. 1,61,250/- from CW.2. The Mangalore South Police Station after registering the case, investigated the matter in detail and filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences against the accused.

5. The presence of the accused was secured before the learned Magistrate and charge was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and as such, trial was held.

6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and relied on 89 documentary evidence which were marked and exhibited as Exs.Pl to 89

7. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused statement as contemplated under S.313 Cr. P. C was recorded, wherein accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances found in the prosecution evidence. However, accused did not choose to place his version about the incident on record by examining himself or by placing any written submission as is contemplated under S.313(5) Cr. P. C.

8. Thereafter, learned Magistrate heard the parties in detail and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record including the oral testimony of complainant and PW.2 - Balakrishna and also taking note of the expert opinion about disputed signatures marked at Q1 to Q17 and admitted signatures of the accused marked at SI, recorded a categorical finding that the accused not only collected a sum of Rs. 1,61,250/- from Balakrishna who is examined as PW.2 but also failed to remit the said amount to the Margadarshi Chits (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd. and also concocted the documents for having disputed the same and convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as under:
' Acting under S.248(2) of Cr. P. C., accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under S.406,408,420, IPC.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under S.406 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one month.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and half year and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under S.408 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for two months.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and half year and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under S.420 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for two months.'

9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.171/2014. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the parties in detail, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the accused is in the Revision Petition.

10. In the Revision Petition, the following grounds are raised:
= ' It is submitted that the Judgment and order passed by the Co