Misappropriation occurs when there is clear dishonest intent to benefit from a sum of money received based on wrongful disbursement, fulfilling the criteria of Section 403 IPC.

COMMON ORDER

Both of these Criminal Revision Cases originate from the same judgment, dated 25.02.2015, in S.T.R.No.329 of 2011 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Puducherry, which was upheld by two separate judgments dated 12.11.2021 in Crl.A.Nos.11 & 12 of 2015 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge at Puducherry. In these proceedings, both revision petitioners, as accused Nos.1 and 2, were found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 403 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years of Simple Imprisonment, along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- each).

2. The prosecution's case is that on 24.07.2010, a complaint was received from the ING Vysysa Bank Limited (which has since merged with Kotak Mahindra Bank) indicating that on 15.06.2010, the first accused, James Albert Raj, deposited a cheque bearing No.025888, dated 09.03.2010, for Rs.10,00,000/-, issued in his favour by Arumugam. After depositing the cheque, since it was an instrument from another bank, it was sent for collection, and the core banking solution process usually sends an SMS to the concerned parties. Upon receiving the SMS, on 16.06.2010, the first accused, James Albert Raj, visited the branch with his employer Mohanraj, carrying two cheques: one bearing No.983316, made in the name of the second accused, Mohanraj @ Arumugam, and another bearing No.983314 for Rs.5,00,000/-, payable to the account holder himself.

3. Without proper verification, the bank cashier, Sathiyanarayanan, upon seeing only the uncleared balance indicating a total of Rs.10,02,700/- in the account, while in reality only Rs.2,700/- was available, cleared both of the cheques and paid cash. Realising the mistake immediately, the cashier alerted S.Jayakumar to find out whether both the accused who received the cash were still in the bank. However, since they left immediately, bank officials went to the accused's shop, which remained closed. Attempts to contact them by phone also failed. The branch head, Gopalakrishnan, and another person, Segar, waited at the accused’s shop and met them at 3.30 P.M., requesting them to return the cash. Their request was not complied with. By 3.30 P.M on the same day, the branch also received a memo stating that the cheque deposited by the first accused had been dishonoured for insufficient funds. Since the accused, fully aware that the money was wrongly paid and subsequently misappropriated for their own use, a complaint was filed.

4. Upon the said allegations, a case in Crime No.209 of 2010 was registered for alleged offences under Section 403 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by Gokulakrishnan, Sub-Inspector of Police. Thereafter, the case was taken up for investigation, and a Final Report was filed by P.W.5, Ganesh. The case was registered as S.T.R.No.329 of 2011, and after issuing summons and questioning, the accused denied the charge and stood trial. To prove the allegation, the prosecution examined R.Gopalakrishnan, the head of the branch at that time, as P.W.1. He testified that the cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- was presented by the first accused, and by mistake, considering the uncleared balance reflected against the account, the amount was paid in respect of the two cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- each. He also stated that immediately after, the accused were contacted but failed and omitted to repay the money.

5. The cashier, Sathiyanarayanan, who also spoke about the said fact, was examined as P.W.2. Another official, Segar, who als