1 Cri.RF 23/2906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 37" DAY OF JUNE 2009
BEFORE
THE i-i{)N'BLi-E MR.JUS"}'IC.E A.s.PAcaH,g;5§)R'fi;"--' -
CRIMINAL REVISEON PETITIVQN. N0.
BEYWEEN
Doddayailaiah,
S] 0 Siddanzzaiiaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
R/' a1;V(3kkodivi]]age, : =
'I'un1I{13.rTa1uk and Dist '_ VV ITIONER/S
(S151. . qaya_;}rakash, Aévs.)
Stats: <91" Karnata}-:a
» ._Stai:2':x")fi. H()i1.ag3 om¢er.. ..... .. -
§andiI.:.a$m*s.ra1:-1 Police
'--._Stta.ti'{,---n, Tiiilivmkere Taluk
mm.1;u;.;:~ RESPONDENT/S
(S2; 3. HCGP.)
V’ , A’ Criminal Revision Peiitian is filed under Scction
39″?{3_.~) 3z. 401 Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petifioncz” praying
_V -.AjA’.-that this Hozfble aourt may be pleascé {:0 set aside the
_j11d?;ment dt. 1′?.10.05 passed by the R0,, §””l”C–IiI, , in
‘«. Cfr’1.A.No.36/O5 am} confirming the gudgmani: passed by the
. 1’ )C.J,(..Jz–.Dn) 35 JMF’C., ‘Turuvekere, in 0.3.910. 169/95 ét.
225.34.
This Cziminal Revision Pefifion coming on fbr Blaming;
this day, the Cmxrt, made the following:
3 Cri.RP 2152966
the pass book but did net credit the amount into the ofice
acceunt as such, it is aiieged that the accused misappropriated
Rs.15196/-.
3. PW.1 — S.R. Dinamaai after the i11$§Jtcfjgt;;f};_:”V;afi{§;.
verification submitted his oompiaint Ex.P.14 wfaei _
registered and thereafier an }’11V(:STig:f;i;§2i{}f:}.:A4\?¥’1{3,i#”}’VV7_
and 7′ who seized tbs elocumenfisand ‘mficmed
cf Pws. 3. to 4 and afier the comgjiittgién cf tfic_Vi1:1v.’:§:33ti§g1ti(VV)V31 filed
the chargesheet.
4. lfifisgg”.i§é fr&1;fii;.fig’€>f’t_1;e–c:ha2rgti:, the prosecution led the
evidemze 8 and in their evidence got
markepithg ti.<).(V31i;."£;'if3};'1§ZS E.xs.P.} to 13.15. The statement of the
§*e::;ox'dt3:d"2;z1der Scctioza 313 Cr.I-"KC. He has takan
{ienial and has not 1661 any defence
evidénm. v_'v'i'}1;§f–TTx~ial Court after htzaxing the appellant and the
_ i;' 'r_ e:i{n;;nscl tthe accused and on appzeciafion of the material on
A fiaxivicicd the petitioner fer tbs oficace under Sactivn
WC and crdmteci him is undergs imprisonment for a period
1.5;}? cane year and £0 pay a fine of R:-3.3,(}%/– in éefault ta
underge SJ. far two mmzths. Aggxieved by the conviction and
the scmiencs, the igetitioner approached the Sessions Court in
5/;
4 CIERP 2i.I’2006
Cri.A.N0.36[i2{)(}4 and the said appeal came to be dismissed
vide judgment and ereier dated 1′?.1(‘).i2(}(}5. Aggzieved by the
concunent findings of conviction, the petitionett”‘»thas
a§proached this Court in revision.
5. I have heart’. the learned cou,._r:-..sei_ for they V’
also: the Government Pieader. The ivtltat’ ‘atisewt VfGr €’1i’.1§t’
eonsiéeratien are: ‘
i. Whether the judgfiiefit «–oft1er V} of
conviction for the ._offc§nee: pjtnqishahie uttder
Section 409 WC ~E’s.entei2vs§e..v”t’e__ere01:1 as
O1¥tj}6I’€(!i_ ané ttonfirmed in the
agfipeai is Vfiletgaat “.’33:id _.
c:>rc”.3,er’F-‘.
. V. ¢ ” 3-.ITt iiathe eefitenfion of the learned counsei fer the
is ac} material on recoré ts prove the
and there was no entrustxnent of the amount
“in the haxtéis ef the accused and so also it is his eentenfion that
V”§i;eV:}_e’.””A_of the Witnesses have stateé anything abeut the
‘ miiaapgareptéation. In the circumstances, it is his contention
u that the Courts below were wmng in arrivtng at the finding ef
the znisappropriation anfi therefore sought for setting asitie the
conviction. Per contra, the Ieexxzed Government Pleader
.3
CELRP 2152996
U:
supports the impngneé judgtncnt and orders of thaj:
below.
1?. As could be from the t:Vi{i(.’i13.{:tttbAAb}tt3 §i ihérfs is
so far as the misapprc>pIiation_fQr astraifiount
concerned and the prosecti’tit§i1 hhasl ‘mutt:
Chandrakantha 8. Hang}. kiiepigsitsd the
amount of RS500/«. In regazvding
the degaosit a11d§.t1’1’t*.~V4V vtscncerned, I have
to conclucid to prove the
oft’
3. Sc ufaihas PW;’2″is”c-Qfic’§:mcd, it is in his evifience that
he was§’ciewsiti13..gA the amount in his RI.) account every month
éfi deposit was over, he raqucsteé. the
~.v him to withdraw the amount and the
t aCC”ti;:’-éfid ftktie $ig:rxatur:e on two forms Exs.P.6 and 13.3′ as
Exs;.P.}3?(b) and P.?'(b) and asked PW2 to come after a week
to,’ ‘.:?:¢::§iVe the mexmy. Later, them was an enquixy regarding
.« misappmpsriation in the Post Oflce of the accused and he
went there and gava his statement as per Eix.P.8. Though
P’W.2 has been crc>ss«-e:xam:£nc{,i at length, there is ncathing 1:0
disbelieve the: evidence of PW.2 so far as the :t3.on~paymcnt of
vé
6 CILR? 2152006
Rs.5696/ ~ from his RD account. There is no I*easo11’:Vfc¥;;:”L:P§§.5.,.2
‘£0 make a %ls€ statement if he had received
his RD aocoutxt. In that View of the” mattér, {I18
ammmt of Rs.S,696/– is concerned, “(iv-f
the evicience of PW2 is sufficiéizfi °a1r_;c3. Jallfilji:
has signed Ex.P.6 and forVA’={§:cci;\}éd .1;hc §111oney is
iiself not suficient =;§rid.¢nce. In the
{zircumstan-zres, théitfridexzce’ of the other
evidence ied_ 4′ §i§ éient to prove the
misappmpxffiafimi / ~ by the accused.
9. in a Factory at Ammasandra
Village, He £:1ep§svi.$é{3_;an”:é1mount of Rs.250(}/ – and the said
wgfis Vvgnadaé’ cierk Subramanyan who is not
Fmsecufion. He states that monthly, he used
to ‘:”‘s»t.=:.n”«:V’1’r11v-:>’}:.«zé3f_ Vt:-i)vVthe post ofice for deposit and after learning
‘that is hzfiisappropziation in the Post Office, he mquasted
V’ élmjk 13$ get the account chased and at that time, his ckirk
–. .?()§;tfE§ that fitters is no entry with mgaxti to the deposit of
“–« uR’é$.’4,0{}0/- in the accannts of the Post Ofifice. He adnlits thfi
u :I’€{;’:€i§iit cf Rs.4,0{)0/~ afirrr abeut a year of the ciosum of his
accaunt. it is reievant to note that the clerk 0f PW.3 is
£><.
1?’ Cfi.R? 21f2{)9é
examiner} by the prosecution and PW.3 admits the F€’f3E1§LflEi;i
of the amount of Rs.4,800/– and in the ‘
caxmot bi: said that the accused misappmpziatéii’ u u
Rs.4,0{)O/– deposited by :>w.3 in the ;;a¢sAi:M*M*¢fiicéT’bg*x§¢.g
cefiificaies,
10. In thr: CiI’C”£1mSt’:’i.IiC§3S, 2*Lh e$”Ae£ii;ience led
by the pmsecution though fiiji;2’»’;j;isappr0p17%ati0n
of Rs.4,9{)0/- by mr§ ‘F1i«é¥i§_”-i$_._$};1$:iicient materia} to
prove the said amount was
entzustcgi’ %;¢%}fg£)””ii;as the post master of
Ammasa1’idrélPcs tVV “is ha who had receiveé the
money i3t’0111’I3’*’.§.!A’.2 u’.n:1ér,R[} accounts. But any’ haw it is
‘~ the misgz-i’pp.mxgriafion as it is atimitted by P2W.2 that
V–.Latr.:i*”i1c1z’@{i€;i$$é:ci”£7iae amount frem the Acctmrzd and nothing is
dué .t<5'*h.inv1A. View of the mafter, I am of the opinion that
' [the the Courts b-slaw Se far as the misappropsriation.
"xix? iiie".1;;1o1;€y af PW12 is concerned cannot be éifitzxrfiéd. in the
'– . -'zixtjnmstaacrszx the accused is guilirgg fer the ofihnce under
"'«.:Sé¢tion 409 [PC for misappmpriafing an amazmt 01;" £335,596} -.
I 1., T116: Iaaxmid C£)B_fiS€§ aliemafively submittad to Show
leniency to {£16 accugsd as he is new aged more than 617} years