IN THE HIGH mum' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGP¢Lx'}R'€§';"* _
DATED THIS THE 1st my OF oc':'c::BER,%4%:§*00aZLAAL '
8EFOREmmH
THE Homam MR. JUSTICE Ki"-SIQESVIDHAR
Criminal Apgal 3? {sf
Betwean: ' ' A
State of Karnataka T_
By Hosadurga Policc Stafifiri A
I-Icesadurga - i "
~~~~ ...APPELLAN'l'
(By Sri <};Bha;vaMni;%Sj;j:g:a;«%'SiéI«=.; %
A._.11.;i..;.
« _____ .. e
RSI 'Sarmaneclalvpa,
65) years, 'Ex;
Keicsd' - XLSL ;. Sbciety,
V , H0331:-m'nd1;r"LAi._ v
1:; T Hosad urge;
'M. Ramachandra, Adv.)
... RESPONDENT
THIS cam FILED UIQDEZR *3EC’i’ION 373(1) CR. P. C.
“*P.12_e.Y:r«:G TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
“JUDGMENT 13520 4.5.1998PASS-ED BY THE JMFC, HOSADURGA EN (:50.
N{).6S8{1988 ACQUFITING THE RESPONDENT ACCUSEI} FOR THE
‘ “‘<§§*FB:NcE U/S. 408 IPC.
#4
1*-J
This appeal coming on far heaxiflg,
Court delivered the following: “” 5 ‘ .
JUnGMENr-fgQm
The accused was workinglxasi..Se::19eté;1fj;*–.if1~»’E<;ar3.§}du ''
Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Saflgha u
1: is alleged that during mellpefingl belzséggcéla 19754? to
1983-82 he has V " instances of
misappropriatiams. Tl7it":I'§:f are '4 ."sej:::~11§a.te cases filed
against" fieéjjelct of different sets of
misap;51*o;jrfiaV.tiolisll.':_ejFE): year 2976-77 , it is alleged that
the actgtuseii" .d'efé1cé;ted Rs.16,77'7.9G. The accused is
V' for offence punishable under Section
l – V
A ' —.Vl'i'he'.;f-iccgilsed has taken up the plea that the amount
'V of fifigafipfepfiafion shown is not illegal withdrawal Gr
l V' villlelgal tgllilisation. The Committee of the society has gven
' xlagllllleyproval for the same. The trial Cour: has found that
u mtlle accused has not produceé the resolution of the
Cgg
Committee to prove that the above azneunte.
validiy drawn by the accused
3. _ The trial Court on the basi-‘si0f.the-‘_” z-‘i;:1’ef
the evidence of the auditor, ,
accused is guiity of the..__j”f.eisapi)r0p:%iett_i<$i'2; 'hewever
acquitted the accused" {in the pteseeution
iaunches almost after in appeal.
4. On »ee::$Vide1″atien, it is seen that the
finding of that the accused is guilty of the
ermlproper. The Vi€W taken by the trial
‘w”:i1:_é’:’,V”£}:*§:e ~ .jp1*osecutien is barred by limitation is bad
‘_Iifie’i_V_r§fi’ence under Section 408 IPC is puniehebie
twith mere than 3 years. Therefore there is 13,0 limitation for
presecutien. In that View the order of acquitta}
K by the trial Court is set aside.
5. The misappropriation pertains 1:0 tine yearv.1 § ?’€?-77.
The ameunt is paltry anzount. The
around 75 years now. The accuseé nag 3 :
benefit of Probation of Oifendéfs fine ‘
accused is aémitted to pmba-tifnn
{£359,000/m with Surety fer £}1t”‘,v:’1:i}.sI V<.',~S'1..iIi1:V:_f(;':vI' pcrioci of
one year.
3!-