IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 831 OF 2006 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2006 IN CRL.A NO.172 OF 2002 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2002 IN CC NO.632 OF 1998 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANNY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS PULOOR HOUSE, MYLAPRA.

BY ADV SRI.BABU CHERUKARA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ.N.R-PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 409 of IPC.

2. The petitioner is the accused No.1 in C.C.No.632 of

1998 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny (for short, 'the trial court'). He faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC.

3. The petitioner was working as the Postmaster of the Ranny-Uthimoodu post office during the year 1995. CWs 2 and 3 had RD accounts in the said post office. Admittedly, they deposited an amount of Rs.4,000/- each in their respective accounts for the period from 30.09.1995 to 30.12.1995 as monthly instalments of Rs.1,000/- each. It is also not in dispute that the above amounts were entrusted by CWs 2 and 3 to the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the petitioner who was working as the Postmaster, misappropriated the said amount without depositing the same in the post office account.

4. Before the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. After trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional District & Sessions Court-I (Adhoc), Pathanamthitta (for short, 'the appellate court') in Crl.A.No.172 of 2002. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

5. I have heard Sri.Babu Cherukara, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sangeetha Raj.N.R., the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner impeached the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court on the appreciation of evidence and resultant findings as to guilt. The learned counsel further submitted that though there is evidence to show the entrustment of money by CWs 2 and 3 to the petitioner, there is absolutely no legal evidence to prove misappropriation. The learned counsel also submitted that at best the action on the part of the petitioner would amount to dereliction of duty, and cannot be termed as a culpable act. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that necessary ingredients of Section 409 of IPC had been established and the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Prosecutor further submitted that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in revision.

7. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and Exts.P1, P2 and P5 to prove its case and to fix the culpability on the petitioner. PWs 1 and 2 are the father and wife respectively of CWs 2 and 3, who were the RD account holders. It is not in dis