Thitla Madhu Babu, Nizamabad ... vs The State Of A.P., Rept. By Pp., ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2534 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL


     CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1267 of 2011


ORDER:

The present criminal revision case is filed against the

Judgment in Crl.A.No.80 of 2009, dated 10.06.2011 passed

by the learned I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that charge sheet has

been filed against the petitioner/accused/appellant for the

offences punishable under Section 409 IPC. The case of the

prosecution is that on 29.11.2022 the complainant by name

Boddu Ram Gopal Reddy, Branch Manager of Sri Rama

Grameena Bank, Armoor went to the police station and

lodged written complaint stating that himself and accused

are the joint custodian of Sri Rama Grameena Bank, Armoor

Branch and on 26.01.2022 the accused attended cash

functions of receipts and payments for the whole day and

while closing the cash, found shortage of Rs.4,32,000/- and

when enquired with the accused, disclosed that he paid

excess amount one of the account holder by name Sri S.

Gangareddy having account No.120 and on the same day at

9:00 p.m. left the bank on the pretext that he is going to get

back the amount from the account holder but did not return

and hence sought for necessary action.

3. Basing on the above complaint, the Sub Inspector of

Police has registered the crime and investigated the matter

and recorded detailed statements and alter seized the

original documents pertaining to the cash transactions dated

26.11.2022. On 04.12.2022, the Sub Inspector has arrested

the accused and forwarded to the Court for judicial remand.

After completion of the investigation the police filed charge

sheet which was taken on file as C.C.No.31 of 2004.

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

to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused

was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the

incriminating circumstances appearing against himself in

the evidence on record and pleaded false implication. But,

however, did not choose to lead any evidence in defence.

6. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence

on record, the learned Magistrate is not inclined to invoke

P.O. Act. But however, inclined to take lenient view while

imposing sentence. The accused found guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 409 IPC and he is convicted under

Section 248(ii) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In

default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of two months.

7. Aggrieved by which, the accused preferred an appeal

before the learned I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad,

the learned appellate Court after considering the facts and

circumstances and upon perusing the Judgment in

C.C.No.31 of 2004, has dismissed the appeal and reduced

the sentence imposed by the trial Court from two years to

one year and in other aspects, the judgment of trial Court

holds good. Challenging the same, the present criminal

revision case is preferred.

8. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/

accused/appellant as well as the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. Perused the

record.

9. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below

with regard to guilty of the revision petitioner and the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not place

anything before this Court, which would discredit the

evidence. Therefore, there is no interference warranted as

far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the

sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in

the year 2002 and almost 21 years have passed and during

this period the revision petitioner must have repented for

what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of

justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of

imprisonment to the period already undergone by the

revision petitioner while maintaining the fine imposed by the

trial Court.

10. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the

conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was modified by

the appellate Court. However, the sentence imposed by the

trial Court to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years

and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the

accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two

months, which was modified by the appellate Court, is set off

to the period already undergone by the revision

petitioner/accused while maintaining the sentence of fine

imposed by the trial Court against the

petitioner/appellant/accused.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Dated: 20.09.2023 vsu