Karnataka High Court
H G Dharmendra vs The State By on 3 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13672
CRL.RP No. 371 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 371 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. H.G.DHARMENDRA
S/O LATE GANAPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUMBALAGERI,
UKKADA, GADDIGE ROAD,
MADIKERI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAVEED S., AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
SUNTIKOPPA PS
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T BANGALORE.
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2017 IN
CRL.A.NO.86/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI AND CONFIRM
THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.2195/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MADIKERI-KODAGU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13672
CRL.RP No. 371 of 2017
ORDER
Heard the Amicus Curie for the petitioner and the learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution
before the Trial Court is that based on the complaint, a case
has been registered against the petitioner herein that he was
working as a J.D.S. Post Master at Athuru-Nalluru Branch Post
Office from 20.06.2008 to 26.11.2012. During the said period,
the petitioner has accepted deposits from C.Ws.4 to 9 and
brother of C.W.10, in respect of their savings accounts to the
tune of Rs.1,40,200/- and also made entries in their respective
passbooks. The petitioner had maintained the Registers in the
Post Office according to his whims and fancies and also utilized
the said deposits for his personal use. Hence, he has
misappropriated the said money deposited by C.Ws.4 to 9 and
brother of C.W.10 and cheated the Postal Department and
others.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by C.W.1, the police
have registered the case and investigated the matter and
charge-sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections
NC: 2024:KHC:13672
406, 409, 420 and 468 of IPC. The accused was secured, he
did not plead guilty, hence, the prosecution examined the
witnesses P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked the documents as
Exs.P1 to P39(a). The statement of the accused under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and he denied all incriminating
circumstances put to him.
4. The Trial Court, having considered the material on
record, acquitted the revision petitioner. Hence, an appeal is
filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.86/2015. The
First Appellate Court formulated the points based on the
grounds urged whether the impugned judgment passed by the
Trial Court acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable
under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 468 of IPC is legal and valid
and whether it calls for interference and answered point No.1
as 'partly affirmative' convicting the accused only for the
offence punishable under Section 406 and 409 of IPC and in
respect of other offence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the First Appellate Court, the present
revision petition is filed before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:13672
5. The Amicus Curie for the petitioner in his argument
would vehemently contend that the Trial Court acquitted the
accused though he had immediately deposited the amount of
Rs.1,40,200/- and also there was delay of 8 months in lodging
the complaint and there was no complaint by the depositors
and the said reasoning was reversed by the First Appellate
Court erroneously by believing the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 to 7.
P.W.2 is the Inspector of Post Offices, P.W.10 is the
Superintendent of Post Offices and P.W.12 is the Inspector of
the Post Offices, who investigated the matter and filed the
charge-sheet and though complaint was lodged after 8 months,
the said aspect has not been considered by the First Appellate
Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in re-
appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record. Hence, it requires interference.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would
vehemently contend that the amount misused by the petitioner
is to the tune of Rs.1,40,200/- and the same is for the period
from 2008-2012 and the prosecution also relied upon the
evidence of P.W.1, who is the depositor and P.Ws.4 to 7 are the
depositors and they gave the evidence that they have
NC: 2024:KHC:13672
deposited the amount and entries are not found in the records
maintained by the Post Office and particularly taken note of
Exs.P29 to P34 and also considered the passbooks and S.B.
Journal Ledger Exs.P4 to P6 as well as daily account registers
Exs.P7 and Ex.P8 and not taken entry with regard to amount of
Rs.1,40,200/- and the same has been considered by the First
Appellate Court, particularly in Para No.21. Hence, there are
no grounds to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate
Court.
7. Having heard the Amicus Curie for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader, no doubt, the
Trial Court acquitted the accused on three grounds which have
been mentioned above, the fact that there was
misappropriation is also established by the prosecution,
considering the document of Exs.P4 to P6 and the same are the
S.B. Journal Ledger and the daily account registers Exs.P7 and
P8. Apart from that, daily accounts sheets Exs.P12 to P28 are
also marked and the First Appellate Court taken note of the
same in Para No.21 and observed that all these material clearly
reveal that the petitioner has not made the corresponding
entries in the said registers and journals maintained in the Post
NC: 2024:KHC:13672
Office and also witnesses P.Ws.1, 4 to 7 have specifically
deposed before the Court with regard to the payment. P.W.1
also categorically deposed that he used to save money from her
coolie work and was depositing into the savings account since
ten years and the petitioner had collected the money paid by
her and made entries in her passbook and the same is marked
as Ex.P1. Apart from that, P.W.4 deposed that he had
deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- in his savings account at the
Post Office and relevant entries are made in the passbook
which is marked as Ex.P33 and during the cross-examination of
P.Ws.1 and 4 also, an admission is made that he had received
the entire money. P.W.5 also deposed that he had deposited
Rs.27,500/- and her passbook is marked as Ex.P34 and so also,
P.W.6 also had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- and her
passbook is marked as Ex.P29 and P.W.7 had deposited
Rs.27,000/- and entry is found in Ex.P32 and during the course
of cross-examination, the accused not disputes the entries
made in all these documents. In Para No.20, the First Appellate
Court taken note of the fact that P.W.2, who is the Inspector of
the Post Offices had investigated the matter and lodged the
complaint as per the direction of the superior. The First
NC: 2024:KHC:13672
Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of evidence available on
record, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 to 8 as well as
P.W.2, reassessed the evidence on record and comes to the
conclusion that when misappropriation was noticed,
immediately complaint was lodged. Hence, the very reasoning
given by the Trial Court that there was delay cannot be a
ground in a case of misappropriation and charges are leveled
against the accused.
8. The First Appellate Court also taken note of
principles laid down in the judgment in R.
VENKATAKRISHNAN VS. CBI reported in (2009) 11 SCC
737, the judgment in STATE BY PSI, ILKAL, BIJAPUR
DISTRICT VS. HANAMAPPA reported in ILR 2000 KAR
1974, the judgment in STATE OF U.P. VS. LAKHAN LAL
SAXENA reported in 2005 SCC ONLINE ALL 734 and so also
the judgment in M.C. GANGADHARAPPA VS. STATE BY
LINGADAHALLI POLICE, K.R. PET TALUK reported in 2002
(5) KAR.L.J. 237.
9. When serious charges are leveled against the
accused, the Trial Court ought to have considered the same
NC: 2024:KHC:13672
and the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is erroneous and
the First Appellate Court rightly applied its judicious mind and
taken note of factual aspects and when deposit was made by
the public, public money was misappropriated by the official of
Postal Department with whom they had entrusted money and
the same was misused. Hence, the First Appellate Court rightly
taken note of ingredients of offence under Section 406 of IPC
as well as 409 of IPC.
10. With regard to the sentence is concerned, the same
commensurate with the charges leveled against the petitioner
and maximum punishment given is one year, particularly with
regard to the offence under Section 409 of IPC and the offence
under Section 409 of IPC is an offence against the society at
large. Hence, I do not find any ground to take any lenient view
as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Therefore, there is no merit in the revision petition to reverse
the findings of the First Appellate Court. The reasoning given
by the First Appellate Court is based on material available on
record and the First Appellate Court has applied its judicious
mind and rightly set aside the order passed by the Trial Court
and reason assigned by the Trial Court is not correct when
NC: 2024:KHC:13672
public money was siphoned by the official of the Postal
Department.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is dismissed.
(ii) The Registry is directed to pay an amount of
Rs.5,000/- to the Amicus Curie.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
