THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1082 of 2007 Date:11.08.2014 Between:
Penubarthi Sudhakar Rao . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1082 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 27-07-2007 in Crl.A.No.101/2005 on the file of Special Judge For Trial Of Offences Under SCs & STs (POA) Act 1989- cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore whereunder judgment dated 18-05-2005 in C.C.No.438/1999 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Nellore filed charge sheet against three accused alleging that A1 worked as temporary Section Writer in District Treasury Office, Nellore during 1988-89, whereas the other accused are the postal staff to Head Post Office, Nellore. The State Government in order to distribute landless widow agricultural pension amounts through postal money orders, obtained D.Ds in the name of Head Postmaster, Nellore and dispatches the same to the office of Head Postmaster from the District Treasury Office. Similarly, District Treasury Office, Nellore obtains demand drafts in the name of Head Postmaster through his post office. In the year 1988-89, A1 was deputed to attend the work of D.Ds intended for distribution among the landless agricultural pensioners by way of money orders. As the D.Ds stand in the name of Head Postmaster, Nellore, the postal staff was entrusted with the job of receiving D.Ds and dispatching the amounts to concerned beneficiaries by way of money orders, after scrutinizing each and every draft and compare them with the list of demand drafts furnished by the D.T.O., Nellore.
All the accused developed an evil idea to misappropriate certain demand drafts and convert the amounts to their own and for this purpose, A1 opened S.B Account in the post office. Prior to 28-08-1989, P.W.2 obtained D.D bearing No.OL/A/48.557308 for Rs.75,600/- from S.B.I Main Branch and handed over the same to P.W.3 who subsequently given it to A1 to carry it to the Head Post Master, Nellore and on 28-08-1989, A1 presented the said D.D at Head Post Office, Nellore and also gave a payslip to convert the D.D amount to his personal S.B Account and in view of their earlier conspiracy with A1, A2 to A3 knowing that it is a Government D.D, the contents which cannot be adjusted to the personal account of A1, prepared records and adjusted the D.D amount to the personal S.B Account of A1. This amount of Rs.75,600/- was withdrawn by A1 from his personal account, after transfer of D.D. amount to his account. Thus, A1 misappropriated Rs.75,600/- and A2 & A3 facilitated A1 to withdraw this amount due to their conspiracy. Police registered Crime No.360 & 580/1989 and investigation revealed that A1 committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409 & 420 IPC. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 7 are examined and documents Exs.P1 to P14 are marked on behalf of prosecution. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is marked. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found A1 guilty for offence under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of six months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Nellore and V Additional District & Sessions, Nellore dismissed the appeal by confirming conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, A1 preferred present revision.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for the revision petitioner submitted that trial Court has not appreciated evidence on correct lines and committed error. He submitted that trial Court failed to appreciate from the evidence available on record that the demand drafts in question were actually purchased by the District Treasury Authorities and there is no specific record put forward by the Investigating Officer to substantiate the prosecution story. He submitted that there is no iota of evidence to show that the particular demand drafts were purchased by the Government Authorities, in the absence of such evidence, conviction is not maintainable and therefore, liable to be set aside. He further submitted that trial Court failed to appreciate the defence contention that the prosecution substantially failed to prove the entrustment of Demand Drafts in question to the Temporary Section Writer i.e., A1. He further submitted that the prosecution witnesses though specifically admitted in their cross-examination as to the procedure that every purchase of Demand Draft would be checked primarily by the Office Superintendent comparing the same with the list prepared for distribution of scheme to the beneficiaries and the list will be categorized by Mandal wise and later bundled together and, thereafter will be sent to the Post Master having gone through the check list by Sub Treasury Officer, the same is not appreciated by Courts below. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- Revision petitioner is charged with the offence of 409 IPC. For proving this offence, prosecution must prove first entrustment and then its misappropriation. From the evidence, it is clear that A1 has got S.B Account No.536520 in Head Post Office, Nellore and on 28-08-1989, he presented D.D for Rs.75,600/- with a payslip to transfer the said amount in to his S.B Account. Allegation is that since it is a Government D.D., only because of their conspiracy, A2 to A4 have adjusted this amount to the credit of S.B Account belonging to A1. From the evidence, it is clear that P.Ws.1 to 3 and A1 are entrusted with the duties of obtaining D.Ds in the name of Head Post Master. As per evidence of P.W.2, he took D.Ds from the Bank and handed over them to P.W.1 who in turn entrusted to A1 with the list of pensioners and M.O. Forms to hand over them in Post Office. There, D.D amounts were credited to account of A1, because of earlier arrangement. From the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that A1 encashed the said D.Ds in connivance with A2 & A3 as they issued N.S.C Bonds for transferring D.D amounts. It is also in the evidence that A1 presented N.S.C Bonds in S.B.I and got Rs.25,000/- by pledging them. This is evident from Exs.P4 to P9. During investigation admitted signatures of A1 were sent to expert to compare them with the signatures on the prosecution documents and the expert, after comparison confirmed the signatures of A1 on the material documents. Considering all these aspects, both trial Court and appellate Court convicted revision petitioner herein having held that entrustment and misappropriation are duly proved. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial Court or appellate Court. I also do not find any incorrect findings nor any perversity in the approach of both Courts.
7. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no merits in the revision and the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
8. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence.
9. The trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of the sentence.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:11.08.2014 mrb