IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 173 of 2001()
1. DANIEL @ PODIYAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------
CRL. R. P. No. 173 of 2001
------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
It is alleged that revision petitioner was working as an Extra
Departmental Delivery Agent (hereinafter referred as ‘the delivery
agent’) of Vadaikal Post Office and while so during the period from
26/10/1991 to 14/12/1991 he forged documents to make it appear that
money orders sent to PWs 2 to 4 were received by PWs 2 to 4, and
misappropriated the amount covered by those money orders on the
strength of such forged documents. PW15 conducted investigation and
filed final report. Revision petitioner faced trial for the offences
punishable under Sections 409, 465 and 471 of the Penal Code, was
found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
various periods and payment of fine. Revision petitioner preferred
appeal, but learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the same.
Hence this revision.
2. Revision petitioner and counsel remained absent at the time
of hearing. There is no representation. I heard public prosecutor.
CRL. R.P.No. 173 /2001
2
3. Case is that the son or husband of PWs 2 to 4 used to send
money to PWs 2 to 4 by money orders, but the money orders sent
during the period from 26/10/1991 to 14/12/1991 did not reach PWs 2
to 4 and instead, revision petitioner who was the delivery agent of that
post office during said period forged signatures of PWs 2 to 4 and
misappropriated the said amounts. PW1 is the Postal Complaint
Inspector who on getting complaints of PWs 2 to 4 enquired into the
matter, found the allegations to be correct and lodged Exhibit P1,
complaint to the police as per directions of the superior authority. He
claimed that revision petitioner was working as the delivery agent in
Vadaikal Post Office during relevant time. He also identified the
signature of revision petitioner in the relevant document. PW2 is wife
of PW6. They claimed that PW6 used to send money to PW2 by money
order, Exhibit P4 is the money order and Exhibit P11 is the voucher
allegedly signed by PW2 for receipt of amount. PWs 2 and 6 claimed
that signatures in Exhibit P4 and P11 are not that of PW2. It is also the
version of PW2 that revision petitioner was working as postman of
CRL. R.P.No. 173 /2001
3
Vadaikal Post Office during the relevant time and used to give money
orders to her. PW8 is the sister of PW2 and said to be the witness in
Exhibit P4 for PW2 allegedly receiving the amount. PW8 claimed that
she has not signed Exhibit P4.
4. PW3 is the mother of PW7. Evidence of PWs 3 and 7 is
that PW7 used to send money to PW3 by money orders but the
relevant money order send by PW7 did not reach PW3 and she has not
signed the voucher for alleged receipt of money. Exhibit P12 is the
complaint given by her. PW4 is also another recipient of money order
as per records but denied that he signed Exhibit P3 for delivery of
money. PW5 was the Post Mistress of the post office during the
relevant time, she narrated the procedure for disbursement of money
received as per money orders. As per her version, postman will collect
the money as well as the relevant money orders from her and sign the
relevant register. On the evening the relevant vouchers will be given to
her by the postman to evidence that the amount was given to the payee
concerned. Exhibit P5 series and P6(a) are signed by the revision
petitioner when he collected money from her. According to PW5
CRL. R.P.No. 173 /2001
4
revision petitioner submitted Exhibits P7 to P9 series to her as if money
sent to PWs 2 to 4 were delivered to them. She thought that revision
petitioner had actually paid the amounts to PWs 2 to 4.
5. Contention raised in the revision petition is that there was
inordinate delay in lodging complaint against revision petitioner and
that evidence let in by prosecution is not reliable.
6. There is sufficient evidence to show that during the relevant
time revision petitioner was working as the delivery agent and used to
disburse the money sent by customers by money orders, even in the
case of PWs 2 to 4 but the money orders (Exhibit P2 to P4) never
reached PWs 2 to 4 . PWs 2 to 4 have given evidence that they have not
signed the said vouchers. Signatures in the relevant vouchers are
identified by PW1 as belonging to revision petitioner. Moreover, the
evidence of PW5 shows that the respective amount along with relevant
money orders were entrusted by her to the revision petitioner in which
case, he had to account for that. Thus there is sufficient evidence to
show that revision petitioner in his capacity as Extra Departmental
Delivery Agent was entrusted with the money orders and money for
CRL. R.P.No. 173 /2001
5
payment to PWs 2 to 4, but, he misappropriated the said amount by
forging signatures of PWs 2 to 4 and making it appear that amount
were delivered to PWs 2 to 4. There is little reason to interfere with the
concurrent findings entered by the courts below.
7. Considering the nature of offence committed by revision
petitioner misusing his position as an Extra Departmental Delivery
Agent which affected even the credibility of the Postal Department, I
am satisfied that sentence awarded to revision petitioner is reasonable
and required no interference.
Revision petition is therefore dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE
scm