Sunday, 19, May, 2024
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The Deputy Director vs The State Of A.P. 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1122 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1122 AP
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Deputy Director vs The State Of A.P. 5 Others on 3 March, 2022
        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                     CRL.R.C.274 of 2008

ORDER:-

      Questioning the order of acquittal passed by the Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in C.C.No.110 of 2001,

dated 26.06.2007, the petitioner filed the present Criminal

Revision Case.



2.    Heard Sri M.Vidya Sagar, learned Standing Counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special

Assistant Public Prosecutor.


3.    The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 is

working as UD Clerk and A2 is working as Junior Accounts

Officer, Training Institute, Vijayawada Thermal Power Station

(for short 'VTPS'), Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. P.W.1 is the

Deputy Director of the said Training Institute. Assistant Engineer

(for short 'AE') trainees have attended for training course at

VTPS from 08.01.1996 to 15.05.1996, for which, an amount of

Rs.3,500/- was sanctioned towards stipend to each AE trainee.

During the period of training, Accused No.1 prepared the pay

bills and P.W.1 submitted change returns to Accused No.2 for

passing the bills and Accused No.1 was entrusted to attend the

Accounts Office for passing the stipend salary bills of training

AEs. Accordingly, Accused No.1 submitted change returns from

the month of January-1996 along with pay bills to Junior

Accounts Officer i.e., A2. Likewise, till 15.05.1996 the amounts

were drawn to a tune of Rs.8,92,424-05 ps., Accused No.1
                                      2




continued in submission of pay bills with his own hand writings

by submitting forged change returns of P.W.1 and managed the

passing of pay bills from 16.05.1996 to 5/1997 and thereby

misappropriated an amount            of Rs.9,01,242/- by forging the

signatures of P.W.1. Based on the report given by P.W.1, police,

Ibrahimpatnam Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.195 of

1997 for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 409 IPC and

after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet.      The

case was taken on file as C.C.No.110 of 2001 on the file of Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.


4.      In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to

12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. Accused Nos.1 & 2 were

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which, they denied and

reported no evidence.          So far as Accused Nos.3 to 5 are

concerned, they were discharged from the case by the trial Court

under Section 239 Cr.P.C.,


5.      After an elaborate trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted

respondent     Nos.2   &   3    by    judgment,   dated   26.06.2007.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision

case.

6. This Court has perused the entire evidence of P.W.1. As

seen from the record, P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted

that all the trainee engineers were under his control and during

the relevant period, he has not verified the disbursing list. He

also admitted in the cross-examination that all trainee AEs have

received stipend. Furthermore, the allegation that Accused No.1 3

has forged the signatures of P.W.1 and committed the offence of

misappropriation, cannot be accepted as the prosecution did not

take any steps to send the disputed signatures to hand-writing

expert before the trial Court. It is also a fact that P.W.1 was the

co-delinquent along with Accused No.1 in the Departmental

Enquiry and an order of punishment was passed against P.W.1,

withholding two increments with cumulative effect. In view of

the above fact, the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspiring

confidence of this Court. Except the evidence of P.W.1, the

evidence of other prosecution witnesses is not at all helpful to

the prosecution to connect the accused with the said offences.

Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, the

learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused for the alleged

offences. In that view of the matter, this court is of the

considered view that there are no merits warranting interference

of this Court with the impugned order of acquittal and hence, the

present revision case is liable to be dismissed.

7. IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as

devoid of any merit, confirming the judgment of acquittal, dated

26.06.2007 in C.C.No.110 of 2001, passed by the Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 03rd March,2022.

RPD 4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.274 of 2008

Dated : 03-03-2022

RPD

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 
 
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

 
 
 
 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

Campus Buzz