Telangana High Court
Gunti Venkata Ramana, Gadwal And ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep.By Pp., High ... on 12 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1511 of 2011
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'),
against the Common Judgment dated 15.07.2011 in Crl.A.Nos.12
and 19 of 2011, on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for
Trial of Cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts.(P.O.A) Act-cum-VII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, confirming the
sentence and order passed in C.C.No.361 of 2005 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, dated
19.01.2011.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. The case against the revision petitioners is that accused No.1
was working as a computer operator and accused No.2 was working
as an accountant in M/s. Sri Rama Chit Funds at Wanaparthy
Branch. As per the norms of the Company, the keys to the locker
which can be opened by two keys, each key would be kept with two
different persons who were working in the office. On 31.01.2004, the
Chit Fund Company received Rs.6,71,497/- from the depositers.
Since 01.02.2004 and 02.02.2004 were public holidays, the amount
was kept in the branch and not deposited in the Bank. According to
the prosecution case, one key was with accused No.1 and the other
key was with accused No.2. Taking advantage of the keys being
entrusted to them, they have opened the locker and removed the
cash of Rs.6,71,497/- and the same was misappropriated. On the
basis of the complaint given by the Manager of the Branch, the police
investigated the case and filed charge sheet. During the course of
trial, PWs.1 to 18 were examined on behalf of the prosecution and
Ex.P1 to P53 were also marked. The learned trial Judge found that
the entrustment of keys to accused Nos.1 and 2 was convincing. The
complainant who lodged the complaint died. PW.1 who was working
as an accountant in the said office deposed regarding the keys being
entrusted to accused Nos.1 and 2 and infact documentary evidence
was filed before the Court to show that the amount of Rs.6,71,497/-
was lying in the locker as on the date of entrusting the keys to
accused Nos.1 and 2.
4. The learned trial Judge having considered the evidence on
record found that the evidence of entrusting the keys to accused
Nos.1 and 2 and also the amount lying in the locker was correct on
the basis of the record produced by the prosecution. Infact,
signatures were found in the register which was maintained to reflect
the handing over of the keys, which is Ex.P12. On the basis of the
circumstantial evidence, the Court found that accused Nos.1 and 2
were the persons who misappropriated the amount of Rs.6,71,497/-,
which was in the locker. The said findings of the learned trial Judge
was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that
the person who has lodged the complaint died and was not examined
before the trial Court. Only on the basis of evidence of PW.1, the
conviction was recorded. Infact, it is for the prosecution to prove
that there was entrustment of the amount or that the amount as
stated by PW.2 was lying in the locker. Since, there is no evidence to
convince the Court that Rs.6,71,497/- was in the locker, both the
Courts below have committed an error in recording the conviction.
6. Having gone through the record, PW.1 who was the accountant
stated that the keys was entrusted to accused Nos.1 and 2 which is
reflecting in the register maintained by the Office. Infact, documents
were also produced to show that cash was collected to the said
extent and receipts were also issued.
7. According to the learned counsel, a locksmith of Godrej
Company was summoned to open the locker. If at all the keys were
found with accused Nos.1 and 2, there is no necessity to call for the
said locksmith. The argument of the learned counsel cannot be
sustained. It is the evidence of the locksmith that he had not made
any attempts to open the locker, however, the keys seized from
accused Nos.1 and 2 which were handed over by the Investigation
Officer were used to open the locker. The Investigation Officer had
stated that the keys were recovered from accused Nos.1 and 2 which
were infact used for opening the said locker.
8. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity
with the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction. The
circumstances in the case were proved beyond reasonable doubt to
show that when the keys to the locker were entrusted to accused
Nos.1 and 2, cash of Rs.6,71,497/- was lying in the locker.
9. The punishment prescribed under Section 406 of I.P.C. is
maximum of three years or fine. The said incident of committing
misappropriation was of the year 2004 and nearly 20 years have
passed by. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have no
other cases against them and their families are dependent on them.
In the said circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to
enhance the fine amount to Rs.20,000/- each to be paid by the
accused within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving the
order. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo
imprisonment for a period of three (03) months.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 12.07.2024
sa
