Karnataka High Court
Sudarshan vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
CRL.RP No. 972 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.972 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SUDARSHAN
S/O DADA RAO
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT MIL MILL, MADINA COLONY
GULBARGA-585 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY T.N. PURA POLICE STATION
MYSORE-571 124
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed HIGH COURT BUILDING
by VINUTHA M BENGALURU-560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. KUMARVYASA
BRANCH MANAGER
SKS MICRO FINANCE PVT. LTD.
T. NARASIPURA BRANCH
MYSURU-571 124.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1)
***
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
CRL.RP No. 972 of 2015
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON
SENTENCE DATED 20-12-2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., T. NARASIPURA IN C.C. NO.290 OF 2010 (OLD C.C.
NO. 432 OF 2008) AND CONFIRMED BY THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, IN CRL.A. NO.33 OF
2014 DATED 13-7-2015.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Muzaffar Ahmed, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner-accused, and Sri Vinay
Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1-State.
2. The petitioner has filed this revision petition under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside
the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated
20-12-2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Tirumakudalu Narasipura, in
Criminal Case No.290 of 2010 and confirmed by the III
Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Criminal Appeal
No.33 of 2014 dated 13-7-2015.
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The
petitioner is the accused and respondent No.1 is the
complainant-State.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the
accused was working as a Field Assistant in SKS Micro
Finance Private Limited, T. Narasipura Branch. The said
Company is having its Head Office at Hyderabad, Andhra
Pradesh, and is duly incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956. It is a Non-Banking Financial Company and
advances loan to rural women and self-help groups and
other women organisations. On 5-5-2008 at about
11.00 a.m., the accused along with another Field
Assistant, namely D. K. Thimmaraju, had gone to State
Bank of Mysore, T. Narasipura Branch, to withdrew cash of
Rs.5,18,000/-. Soon after withdrawal, they returned to the
Office and handed over the entire cash to PW1-
Kumaravyasa, Branch Manager. Thereafter, the Branch
Manager handed over cash Rs.2,90,000/- to the accused
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
and proper acknowledgement was obtained by him in
respect of entrustment of the said money and instructed
the accused to distribute the said amount to two women
associations situated in Bagali Village, Chamarajanagar
Taluk. The accused received cash and set out for the
aforesaid purpose, but he returned back to the Office and
falsely informed the Branch Manager that he has lost the
cash. He neither lodged a complaint, nor returned the
money to the Company and thereby, he cheated and
misappropriated the said amount for his personal use.
Therefore, PW1 lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. This led
to registration of F.I.R. and investigation.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, in all,
examined eleven witnesses as PWs.1 to 11, got marked
eighteen documents as per Exs.P1 to P18 and two material
objects were marked as per MOs.1 and 2. Based on oral
and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 406 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with
default imprisonment. In so far as the offence under
Section 420 of the IPC, the trial Court acquitted the
accused.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused
preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and
the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed
by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has
contended that the judgment of conviction passed by the
Courts below is perverse, capricious and arbitrary and not
in accordance with law. The trial Court has erred in
coming to the conclusion that there is entrustment of
money to the accused, but there are many discrepancies
in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence
of the employees of the Company is fatal to the case of
the prosecution due to many contradictions in their
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
testimonies. It is contended that as per the prosecution
case, a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- was handed over to the
accused, but the same was not proved beyond reasonable
doubt. It is contended that the trial Court has committed
error in coming to the conclusion that no complaint was
lodged to the Police Station in respect of theft of money
from the hands of the accused. Further, the trial Court has
failed to analyse the fact that the accused did not affix his
signature on any register. On all these grounds, he prays
to allow the revision petition.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State has contended that the trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court after considering the
oral and documentary evidence on record, particularly, the
contents of Ex.P6-loan register extract and on the
evidence of PW6-Thimmaraju came to the conclusion that
the accused committed the offence and accordingly,
convicted him for the offence punishable under Section
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
406 of the IPC. There is no merit in this petition. Hence,
he prays to dismiss the revision petition.
9. On perusal of the material on record, PW1-
Kumaravyasa-complainant has stated that he was the
Manager at SKS Micro Finance Private Limited and the
accused was working as a Field Assistant in the said
financial company at Holenarasipura Branch. The business
of the Company was to advance loan to women
associations. On 5-5-2008 at about 11.00 a.m., he
entrusted the accused and another Field Assistant, namely
D.K. Thimmaraju (PW6) to withdrew cash of Rs.5,18,000/-
from State Bank of Mysore, T. Narasipura Branch. On
return to the Office, out of the said amount, PW1
entrusted Rs.2,90,000/- to the accused and instructed him
to distribute the said amount to two women associations in
Bagali Village, Chamarajanagar Taluk. The accused took
the said amount, but he failed to distribute the same to
women associations. On the other hand, he came back
and created a story that money was stolen by somebody
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
on the way. The matter was intimated to the Head Office
and not satisfied with the explanation given by the
accused, on 6-5-2008, a complaint was lodged with
T. Narasipura Police. On 7-5-2008, the Police conducted
panchanama and seized the required documents. PW6-
D.K. Thimmaraju is another Field Assistant of the
Company. He has stated that PW1-Branch Manager
entrusted the accused to distribute Rs.2,90,000/- to two
women associations, but he failed to distribute the same
and thereby, he cheated the Company. Therefore, the
evidence of PW6 corroborates with the evidence of PW1.
10. On perusal of Ex.P8-loan register for the financial
year 2008-09 at page Nos.20 and 21, it is clearly
mentioned regarding handing over of cash of
Rs.2,90,000/- to the accused at serial No.2 and relevant
portion is marked as Ex.P8(a). This entry also shows that
the accused was entrusted with cash of Rs.2,90,000/- for
distributing the same at Bagali Village. The denomination
of notes entrusted is specifically made at Ex.P8(a). He was
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
handed over 200 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- value, 100
currency notes of Rs.500/- value and 400 currency notes
of Rs.100/- value, in all Rs.2,90,000/-. In the instant case,
one of the material witnesses, i.e. PW1-Kumaravyasa has
clearly stated about the role played by the accused and
amount misappropriated by him.
11. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the scope of
Section 406 of the IPC which states punishment for
criminal breach of trust.-'Whoever commits criminal
breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.' In the instant case,
PWs.1 and 6 have categorically stated about entrustment
of cash of Rs.2,90,000/- to the accused in order to
distribute the said amount to two women associations (self
help groups), but the accused instead of distributing the
amount, misappropriated it and given colour of theft
committed while he was proceedings towards the village.
Hence, the prosecution witnesses have stated about the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
entrustment of amount and misappropriation of amount on
the part of the accused. There is direct involvement of the
accused in commission of an offence in respect of criminal
breach of trust as per Section 406 of the IPC.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has
contended that no money was handover to the accused to
distribute the amount to women associations and hence,
he has not committed the offence. In order to substantiate
this contention, the accused has not placed any material.
The oral evidence of PWs.1 and 6 are supported by
Ex.P8-loan register extract and Ex.P9-movement register.
Further, PWs.2, 3 and 9, employees of the Company, have
deposed in line with PWs.1 and 6. PWs.7 and 8, witnesses
to recovery mahazar, have stated that a sum of
Rs.45,000/- was recovered from the possession of the
accused. The evidence of PWs.7 and 8 corroborates with
the evidence of PW11-Investigating Officer. Therefore, the
evidence of the prosecution is fully corroborative with each
other and there are no reasons to disbelieve the clear,
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43891
consistent and corroborative testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. The trial Court and the First
Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the documentary
evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 406 of the IPC and sentenced
him in accordance with law. Under such circumstances,
there is no error on the apparent on the face of the record.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KVK
