The court held that documentary evidence, particularly verified passbook entries and expert handwriting analysis, sufficiently proves misappropriation and forgery by a public servant, and confirmed that civil forum proceedings do not negate the findings of criminal liability due to the higher burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt).

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 01.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SAGAR IN C.C.NO.149/2011 AND JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.10025/2017.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Swamy Shiva Prakash H, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an Order of Conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, in C.C.No.149/2011 dated 01.08.2017.

“Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default for payment of fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default for payment of fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default for payment of fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default for payment of fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently and the sentence of fine shall run consecutively.

Out of the aforesaid fine amount of Rs.40,000/- a sum of Rs.35,000/- shall be given to the PW-1 by name Sri Ramadevadiga, S/o Dasappa, as compensation as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

Bail bonds executed by the accused and his surety shall stand cancelled.

That the period of detention undergone by the accused from 20.02.2008 to 04.03.2008 in total for 13 days shall be given set off against the terms of imprisonment imposed on him.”

3. The Order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the accused before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.10025/2017.

4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on re appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 06.10.2017.

5. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this revision.

6. At the outset, Sri Swamy Shiva Prakash, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the material evidence on record is not properly appreciated by both the Courts and therefore, Order of Conviction is incorrect and sought for allowing the revision petition.

7. Alternatively, he would contend that taking note of the age of the accused who is already a deaf person, Court may