Accused convicted under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act for intentionally destroying a postal article; released on probation considering circumstances as a first-time offender.

ORDER

Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.3090/2009 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and he is the appellant in Crl.A No.15/2016 of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. In this revision, he assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 .

2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 5.5.2009 at around 11 am., accused who was working as Gramin Dak Sevak at Eroor Post Office, tore up a postal article entrusted to him for delivery and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 .

3. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who tried the case found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 52 of the Post Office Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appeal preferred by him as Crl.A No.15/2016 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam was dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence.

4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this revision petition contending that the trial court and the appellate court have not analysed the evidence in its correct perspective; that the trial court and the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the fact that there was an evil design of the departmental higher-ups to frame him in a false case to wreck vengeance against him; that the trial court and the Sessions Court failed to take note of the enormous delay in filing the complaint and failed to take note of the inconsistencies in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Thus, according to the revision petitioner/ accused, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him are liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings rendered by the trial court and the appellate court and submitted that both the trial court and the Sessions Court have analysed the evidence in its correct perspective and there are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the verdict of guilty and the order of sentence.

6. It is a settled principle that the scope under the revision against the concurrent finding of fact is very much limited. Ordinarily, the revisional court will not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact unless the finding of the court, is perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or when the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.

7. Bearing in mind the above principles, now let us see whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court.

8. PW2 was the Postal Assistant of Eroor Post Office on the relevant date. On 5.5.2009, she was in charge of Postmaster. According to her, on 5.5.2009 PW3, who was the delivery clerk, entrusted a letter addressed to one 'Mr.K.B.Krishnakumar, Karuvelil House', to the accused for delivery. She has further testified that the said letter which was received in the said post office on 29.4.2009 was initially entrusted to a postwoman of that post office. Later, when it was found that the addressee was residing in the beat