Revision dismissed. Court rejected claim of insufficient evidence regarding misappropriation of postal bags. Affirmed conviction for Section 409 IPC and rejection of request to admit acknowledgment for forensic test.
Criminal revision case dismissed; conviction under Section 409 IPC upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.243 OF 2007
ORDER:
This revision is preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment, dated 12.02.2007, passed in Crl.A.No.57 of 2004, on the file of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, whereby said court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment, dated 12.02.2007, passed in C.C.No.255 of 2002, on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hidnupur, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 409 IPC and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.700/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
2
registered a case in crime No.3 of 2002 for the offence under Section 402 IPC.
3
POINT No.1 :-
The words “public servant” denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following, namely:
4
5
interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Government;
a. in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government;
b. in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).
6
transport transit postal bags as such. As per Ex.P1, the Depot Manager, APSRTC Depot, Hindupur agreed to transport the postal bags to Boodili. PWs.2 and 3 being the postal staff were deputed to receive the bags at RTC Bus stand. PWs.4 and 5 worked as SubRecord Officer and head sorter in RMS Office, Hindupur. P.Ws.6, 8 and 10 are working as Branch post masters of Boodili, Chilamathur and Lepakshi. PWs.7, 9, and 11 are working as ED packers in the above said three post offices. PW7 was on duty on that day, with permission, in the place of his father who was ill. PW7 is the witness who handed over the transit bags to the accused and obtained receipts, which were marked as Ex.P20. PWs.8 and 9 sorted out and kept in the bag along with RD, cash of Rs.17,500/- and sealed the bag. PW8 handed over the same to PW9 to handover the said bags in RTC Bus and obtained Ex.P21 receipt. PW11 handed over the postal transit bag to the accused and obtained receipt Ex.P22 and handed over the same to PW10 sub post master. The above evidence amply proves that the accused received the postal transit bags of Bodili, Chilamathur and Lepakshi and the signature of the accused on Exs.P20 to P22 makes evident the said fact. The accused is supposed to handover the bags to the mail assistants who were available at the bus stand. As per Ex.P14, PWs.2 and 3 were allotted duty at Hindupur RTC Bus stand for receiving postal bags on 01.01.2002. PW4 stated that he deputed PWs.2 and 3 to the RTC Bus stand on 01.01.2002 for receiving the postal bags. Hence from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 coupled with Ex.P14 shows that PWs.2 and 3 were
7
deputed for receiving the postal bags. When the accused came to RTC Bus stand, they approached him and asked about the postal transit bags. They were informed by the accused that he delivered the postal bags at Rahmathpur circle to a person and obtained his signature. Immediately PWs.2 and 3 went to Rahamathpur circle and found nobody available. PWs.2 and 3 reported the said matter to PWs.4 and 5 being the immediate superior officers. The contention that postal department used to take these bags at Rahamathpur circle as railway Mail Service Office is near to the stage was met with by the trial court, with the help of evidence of PWs.1 to 4 who have stated that the postal bags are supposed to be handed over in the Rahamathpur circle office. The courts held that the accused, who has exclusive domain over the postal bags approached the bus by not handing over them as directed.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________ T. RAJANI, J
August 8, 2019 LMV
8
SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.243 OF 2007
August 8, 2019
LMV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 409 IPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
JUSTICE T. RAJANI
State
T. RAJANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
