Justice Anand Byrareddy dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition against the trial and appellate courts' conviction of the petitioner for misappropriation. The Court found no defence explanation and held no case made out for revision.
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2554 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Dilip, S/o. Hanamanthrao Deshpande, Aged: Years, Occupation: Private service, Resident of Gulbarga.
… PETITIONER.
(Shri Gururajrao Kakkeri, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka, Through Brahampur Police Station, Gulbarga. … RESPONDENT.
(Shri Sanjay A. Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. by the Advocate for the revision petitioner praying this Hon’ble Court to set-aside the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.10/2008 dated 29.01.2010 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga and the judgment passed by the Principal JMFC, Gulbarga in C.C.No.2589/1996 dated 27.12.2007.
2
This revision petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
The present petitioner was Accused No.3 before the Trial Court and on the Trial Court having convicted the petitioner, imposing the punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of six months for each of the offences punishable under Sections 403, 201 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for brevity), and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence, an appeal was preferred against the said judgment and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is against that the present revision petition is filed.
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were working in the Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Gulbarga, as Clerk and Secretary respectively. During the period 17.11.1988, it was alleged that Accused Nos.1 and 2 had misappropriated a sum of Rs.20,000/- by
3
preparing a banker’s cheque in the name of the present petitioner - Accused No.3, without depositing the corresponding amount and further, that banker’s cheque was presented by Accused No.3 and encashed through the State Bank of Hyderabad, Gulbarga. Accused Nos.1 and 2 did not bring it to the notice of the management and attempted to conceal the evidence. It was further alleged that Accused No.1 and Accused No.2, in collusion with Accused No.3, had committed the offence of misappropriation. This came to light when the Senior Auditor of Co-operative Societies, by his audit report dated 23.10.1989, unearthed the malfeasance and informed management on 13.11.1989 and on the basis of the same, a complaint was lodged by the President of the Bank on 13.11.1989 at the Brahampur Police Station, Gulbarga, on the basis of which further investigation was conducted and the petitioner along with the other accused, was charge-sheeted. The petitioner and other accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the matter came to trial. The
4
prosecution examined the witnesses and marked Exhibits P1 to P17. Accused No.2 got examined as DW-1 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D10.
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The sentences were to run concurrently and accused No.3, along with Accused Nos.1 and 2, were directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,000/- each, to the Bank.
5
been irregularly issued. Therefore, there was little scope for the present petitioner to question the proceedings. Having miserably failed in his defence before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court having convicted him and the same having been affirmed in appeal, there is even less scope for the petitioner to urge his case before this Court. On a close examination of the
record and having regard to the role of the present petitioner, there is no case made out. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner should be allowed.
Whether there is any scope for the petitioner to urge his case before the High Court after the Trial Court's findings were uncontradicted and affirmed in appeal.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Dilip
State of Karnataka
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
