CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1185 OF 2018

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08.02.2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn) AND C.J.M., MYSORE IN C.C.NO.700/2003 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN CRL.A.NO.54/2017 DATED 10.10.2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 409, 467, 468, 471 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND TO ACQUIT HIM.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Chandrashekara K.A., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.700/2003 and sentenced as under which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.54/2017:

“Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC and to sentence to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC and to sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/-.

Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and to sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/-.

Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and to sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/-

All sentences run concurrently”.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

4. Petitioner has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 408, 418, 423, 467, 468, 471, 477(a) and 420 of Indian Penal Code by Lakshmipuram Police Station, Mysuru.

5. Facts would further reveal that petitioner was working as a First Division Assistant in Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘MUDA’). He has collected the money for and on behalf of the MUDA, but failed to deposit the same to MUDA and misused the same for his personal use. Therefore, enquiry was held and he was found to be guilty. As such, criminal action was initiated.

6. Later on, he has repaid the amount that was due to the MUDA and as such, it is a case of temporary misappropriation.

7. On receipt of the complaint police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was held.

8. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined fourteen witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and exhibited as many as forty documents as Exs.P.1 to P.40.

9. In a matter of this nature, more than the oral evidence, it is the documentary evidence which would establish the guilt against the accused.

10. Admittedly, petitioner has not accounted the money which has been collected for and on behalf of MUDA as could be seen from the material documents placed on record, especially Exs.P9 and P10 which is the copy of the site allotment letters and Ex.P11 being the transfer certificate, Ex.P12 is the yet another site allotment letter and the allottee is having paid the money, accused mis-utilised the same for his personal use and did not deposit the same into the MUDA, which ultimately resulted in discrepancy and enquiry was held and accused was found to be guilty. There were signatures which were disputed by the accused.

11. Therefore, the disputed handwriting sheets and sample handwriting sheets of accused at Exs.P.28 to 39 were also sent to the handwriting expert which have been confirmed by the report marked at Ex.P18.

12. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra.