Partly allowed

Vallam Muni Prabhakar and Another, v. the Stte of a.P., Rpe by Its Pubic Prosecutor

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Feb 2020CRLRC/1067/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal revision regarding alleged misappropriation of pension funds via demand drafts. The court upheld convictions, found co-accused guilty of aiding and abetting, and reduced the imprisonment sentence while enhancing the fine based on the petitioners' advanced age. Unused.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- in addition to existing fine.

Vallam Muni Prabhakar and Another, Vs the Stte… — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1067 of 2007

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard, Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no representation on behalf of Sri. P. Venkat Rao, Advocate.

¶4

Originally, six [06] accused were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 409, 420, 477(A) read with 114 and 34 of IPC. They are, 1] Vallam Muni Prabhakar, 2]N.Gopala Krishnaiah, 3] Appala Sreeramulu, 4] P. Masthan Khan, 5] M. Sreenivasa Rao and 6]P.Satyanarayana Murthy. Before commencement of trial, P.Satyanarayana Murthy died and after the Judgment, Sri. M. Srinivasa Rao died, which is evident from the record. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit that, N.Gopala Krishnaiah and A. Sreeramulu have also died. According to him, Vallam Muni Prahbakar and P. Masthan Khan are the only two [02] person who are alive as on today.

¶5

1. The facts, in issue, are as under:-

¶6

i. 1^st Accused was working as temporary Section Writer in Pension Section, District Treasury Office, Nellore, during the year 1988 and 1989. The other Accused and one N. Gopala Krishnaiah were the postal staff attached to Head Post Office, Nellore in their respective official capacities.

¶7

¶8

ii. In order to distribute agricultural pension amounts to landless poor through postal money orders, demand drafts were obtained in the name of Head Postmaster, Nellore, and the same were dispatched to the Office of Head Postmaster from the District Treasury Office. Similarly, the District Treasury Office, Nellore, obtained the demand draft in the name of Head Postmaster, Nellore, through his post office. In the year 1988 and 1989, 1^st Accused was appointed as Temporary Section Writer and was working in the same capacity in D.T.O., Nellore, in which Smt. C.A. Kamala, worked as D.T.O., Nellore and presently T. Suryanarayana, who is examined as PW1 is working as D.T.O. Nellore. The D.T.O. is said to have deputed 1^st Accused to carry the demand drafts intended for distribution to landless agricultural pensioners by way of money orders by Head Postmaster, Nellore. As the demand drafts stand in the name of Head Postmaster, Nellore, the postal staff were entrusted with the job of receiving demand drafts and dispatch the demand draft amounts to the concerned beneficiaries by way of money orders to scrutinize each and every demand draft carefully and compare them with the list of demand drafts furnished in the D.T.O., Office, Nellore, adjust the same to the amounts of the Head Postmaster, Nellore and issue money orders. Further, National Savings Certificate shall be issued to the parties after getting clearance from the concerned banks regarding the demand drafts.

¶9

¶10

iii. Since, huge amount was involved covering the demand draft and for dispatching of it by way of money orders, the accused developed a common evil and dishonest intention to misappropriate certain demand drafts and accordingly converted the amount by depositing the same in SB account of 1^st Accused, which was opened intentionally for the said purpose thereby causing wrongful loss to the beneficiaries and cheat the Government.

¶11

iv. The averments in the charge-sheet further show that PW3 handed over demand drafts to 1^st Accused to carry it to the Head Postmaster, Nellore, as it is a Government demand draft standing in the name of Postmaster, Nellore. Pursuant thereto, the accused misappropriated the amounts covered under the demand drafts. Thus, the charge-sheet came to be filed stating the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 409, 420 read with 114 and 34 of IPC.

¶12

The case was taken on file as C.C. No. 437 of 1999. On appearance of the Accused, copies of all the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished and charges under Sections 120(B), 409, 420 IPC against A1 to A4 and Section 477A IPC against A2 and A4 came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶13

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. After completing the prosecution

¶14

¶15

evidence, the Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, but did not adduce any oral or documentary defence evidence.

¶16

Basing on the material available on record, the Trial Court convicted the Accused No. 1 to 4 therein, [Accused No. 5 died] and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six [06] months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three [03] months for the offence punishable under Section 120B, 409 and 420 IPC and Accused No. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 477A IPC. Challenging the same, Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2005 & 97 of 2005 came to be filed before V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. By a Common Judgment, dated 27.07.2007, the said Appeals were dismissed. Assailing the said Judgments, the present Revisions came to be filed.

¶17

Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner/Accused No. 1 and 2 would submit that, there is no iota of evidence to connect the demand drafts alleged to have been misappropriated to that of the amounts credited in the account of 1^st Accused. He further submits that, the savings bank account standing in the name of Revision Petitioner No. 1 was operated by one B. Jayaramaiah, who was not examined by the investigation agency and thus, suppressed the truth as to who operated the

¶18

¶19

account in reality. The accused are also prejudiced as the investigating agency filed charge-sheet after lapse of 10 years from the date of registering the offence.

¶20

The contentions now raised were also raised before the Trial and Appellate Court and both the Courts have concurrently held that the prosecution made out a case against the accused.

¶21

It is to be noted here that, Vallam Muni Prabhakar [Appellant No.1], who is a Temporary Section Writer purchased NSC Certificates to the tune of Rs.37,800/- for his own and pledged the same before the State Bank of India. The oral evidence of PW1 clinchingly establish that, on 11.11.1988 demand draft No. 820801 for Rs.37,800/- along with other demand drafts were handed over to V.M. Prabhakar with the list of pensioners and M.O. forms with instructions to hand over the demand drafts list and M.O. forms at the Post Officer, Nellore. It was found that, the demand drafts were credited into his account by purchasing NSC bond. PW2 the Shariff in D.T.O. Nellore, corroborated the version of PW1 in all respects and further stated that, he handed over the above demand drafts to the person incharge of S.T.O., by name, Arava Rajagopal, and the same was entered in the contingent Register after handing over of the demand drafts. He stated that, in turn he handed over to Section Writer [Prabhakar] and later he came to know the said demand draft amounts were credited in to the account of A1 and then misappropriated.

¶22

¶23

The evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in all material particulars, more particularly, that portion of the evidence of PW3 where he speaks about the demand draft numbers, dates and amounts as to when they were credited into the account. PW4 is the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, who deposed that, all the demand drafts were encashed and converted to N.S.C. certificates with the assistance of all the accused. Therefore, the evidence of the officials of the District Treasury Office and Postal Department categorically establish handing over of the demand draft bearing No. OL/A/48- 820801 to V.M. Prabhakar, who purchased the N.S.C. bond in his name. The said oral evidence gets corroboration from the documentary evidence in the form of Ex.P2. Though, the 1^st Appellant disputes the signature on the application made in the N.S.C. as belonging to him, but, when the same was sent to an hand writing expert, it was found that the person who made the enclosed signatures marked as ‘S1’ to ‘S10’ also made the red enclosed signatures marked as ‘Q1’ to ‘Q20’. He issued his opinion that enclosed signatures marked under Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 were by Appellant No. 1 only.

¶24

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners would contend that, the entire allegations are directed against 1^st Accused and that no role was attributed to other Petitioners. But, it is to be noted that, Accused No. 2 and 3 being public servants working in Head Post Officer, Nellore, were aware of the fact that the demand drafts were in the name of Head Postmaster only and those demand drafts amounts cannot be converted as N.S.C. certificates.

¶25

¶26

In-spite of the same, they assisted the 1^st Accused and issued N.S.C. certificates. It is not necessary that a conspirator should always be present at the time of committing offence, but, the circumstances and the involvement of the Petitioners can be established either by direct and circumstantial evidence available on record. As seen earlier, in the instant case, that with the help of Accused No. 2 and 3, the offence has been committed, more so, when it has come on record that Accused No. 2 and 3 intentionally secreted the registers.

¶27

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that, having regard to the fact that some of the accused died and since the transactions for which the Petitioners have been charged took place in the year 1988 and charge-sheet was filed in the year 1999, seeks reduction of sentence. He submits that, the 1^st Revision Petitioner/Appellant [V.M. Prabhakar] was in jail for two months, while, the other Revision Petitioners were in jail for substantial period.

¶28

Having regard to the above and taking into consideration the age as on today, namely, that the 1^st Revision Petitioner must be about 60 years, while, the 2^nd Revision Petitioner is 80 years, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine amount to Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the 1^st and 2^nd Revision respectively, in addition to the fine of Rs.1,000/- already paid, within a period of five [05] weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, in default to suffer

¶29

¶30

simple imprisonment for a period of four [04] months. The learned Public Prosecutor did not oppose for reduction in sentence of the same.

¶31

With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶32

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶33

______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶34

Date: 17.02.2020 SM.

¶35

¶36

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶37

Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1067 of 2007

¶38

Date: 17.02.2020

¶39

SM.

Vallam Muni Prabhakar and Another, v. the Stte of a.P., Rpe by Its Pubic Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vallam Muni Prabhakar and Another, v. the Stte of a.P., Rpe by Its Pubic Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peddina Venkata Rao , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Machani Jagadeesh, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and Another

Smt. B.Maheswari Vs the State of A.P. and Another

S. Doraswamy, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Meesala Kalavathi

Mr. P.Raghunadh, Vs State of a.P., Rep by P., and Another