HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.636 OF 2007 Dated 25-4-2014 Between:
A.Janardhan.
And:
Petitioner.
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.636 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 21-2-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2006 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad whereunder conviction dated 9-6-2006 in C.C.No.607 of 2002 on the file of X1 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad, is confirmed by modifying the sentence.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Bowenpally filed charge sheet alleging that the accused while working as Deputy Manager (Accounts) in State of Bank of Hyderabad old Bowenpally branch committed misappropriation of money to an extent of Rs.3,65,000/- by withdrawing the said amount fraudulently from various saving bank accounts and thereby, committed offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. The trial court examined six witnesses and marked four documents on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 409 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Metropolitan Sessions Court and XI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, partly allowed the appeal confirming conviction but reduced sentence of three years imprisonment to six months confirming fine amount. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred present revision.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
5. POINT:
According to prosecution, accused misappropriated Rs.3,65,000/- by withdrawing them fraudulently from various saving bank accounts during the period from 4-1- 1997 to 7-8-2000. According to prosecution, revision petitioner issued cheques in his account to different out side parties and also passed cheques without debiting to the accounts and clearing cheques are received. According to prosecution, the accused opened a fictitious S.B.I. account in the name of one B.Shekar and made fictitious entries and transacted to the extent of Rs.1,95,865/-. Out of six witnesses examined, P.Ws.1 to 5 are bank officials.
6. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that complaint is lodged on 10-1-2001 for the alleged misappropriation during 4-1-1997 to 7-8-2000 and there is long delay which is not explained by the prosecution. This objection was raised before the trial court and also appellate court. Both courts have discarded the objection considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses. As seen from the evidence, this misappropriation came to light during the enquiry conducted by inspecting team. Bank officials who were examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 have narrated the events in sequence and the report was given only after completion of inspection of the accounts. This fraud and misappropriation is confirmed only after completing departmental formality. As seen from the record, the accused was given a show cause notice in the month of October before lodging complaint. So all these aspects would explain the reason for giving a report only in January, 2001. Both trial court and appellate court have rightly discarded objection of the revision petitioner and I do not find any incorrect findings.
7. The next objection of the revision petitioner is that Investigating Officer has not collected any debt and credit vouchers to fix liability on the revision petitioner for the short fall of Rs.3,65,000/-. Out of five bank officials, P.W.3 is the main witness. He conducted inspection on the instructions of P.W.4. P.W.3 deposed that he inspected and verified record of Bowenpaly branch and visited the said branch in August,2000 and it took four days for verification of account books. He deposed that he noticed fictitious entries in the bank ledger showing fraud to the extent of Rs.3,65,000/- and that the said amount was withdrawn by the accused. He deposed that he conducted inspection with the help of staff. Basing on the inspection of P.W.3, show cause notice under Ex.P.3 was given to accused showing the details of the fraud under six heads for the total amount of Rs.3,65,000/-. Correctness of this document is not disputed by accused and in fact, as seen from the evidence after receiving this memo under Ex.P.3, the accused has paid back the short fall amount of Rs.3,65,000/-. This Ex.P.3 would reflect to the cheques and other details. In view of the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P.3 document objection with regard to non- seizure of vouchers relating to these transactions, is not at all tenable. Further, Investigating Officer has collected the true extracts of the bank accounts from which the accused has withdrawn the amount fraudulently and bunch of account copies is marked as Ex.P.4. So, on a combined reading of Exs.P.3 and P.4, with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that accused has withdrawn Rs.3,65,000/- fraudulently from the various accounts and therefore, the objection of the revision petitioner cannot be sustained.
8. The other objection of the revision petitioner is that prosecution has not sent the cheques to any hand writing expert and that it is a lacuna in the case of prosecution. This objection is raised before trial court and appellate court and both courts have discarded this objection on the ground that accused has not denied his hand writing on these documents. I do not find any wrong in the findings of trial court and appellate court with regard to objection taken by the revision petitioner in respect of the cheques.
9. P.Ws.1 to 5 categorically deposed in their evidence the way in which the accused has withdrawn the amount fraudulently and misappropriated bank money. The modus operandi practiced by the accused is evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.4. Both the trial court and appellate court have elaborately discussed the evidence of these witnesses with reference to the documents marked on behalf of prosecution and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or appellate court. There are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the trial court and appellate court.
10. On a consideration of material, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below for the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 409 I.P.C.
11. Regarding sentence, trial court imposed three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- but the appellate court while considering the fact of repayment of misappropriated amount and the family status of revision petitioner reduced three years imprisonment to six months. The appellate court had already taken a very lenient view in respect of sentence. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the sentence.
12. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
13. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 25-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.636 OF 2007 Dated 25-4-2014 Dvs