Dismissed

Veerabhadrayya S/O. Basavannayya Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2023CRL.RP/2273/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging convictions for criminal breach of trust and cheating. The Court upheld findings that the accused was entrusted with trust property via an in-charge arrangement, despite lack of formal appointment by the Apex Bank, and confirmed the lower courts' judgments.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Veerabhadrayya S/O. Basavannayya Hiremath Vs the… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No.2273/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2273/2012

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

VEERABHADRAYYA S/O BASAVANNAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: EX-ACCOUNTANT IN V.S.S.BANK, BELAGALPETH, R/O: BELAGALPETH, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI B. S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD THROUGH HANGAL POLICE

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC., HANGAL ON 12.01.2006 IN C.C.NO.309/2002, AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRL.A.NO.03/2006 DATED 11.09.2012.

¶17

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING AND RESERVED ON 28.11.2022 AT DHARWAD BENCH, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

CRL.RP No.2273/2012

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2006 in C.C No.309/2002 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC at Hangal and also its confirmation order dated 11.09.2012 in Crl.A No.3/2006 on the file of learned Sessions Judge at Haveri.

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶24

Gist of the case:

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that during 1998-99, the accused / petitioner was working as Manager as well as Secretary of Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank, Belgalpet (for short ‘VSS Bank’). During his tenure, it is alleged that, he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,31,688/-. A case came to be filed by the complainant and the police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet for the offences under sections 408, 477-A of IPC.

¶26

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.12

¶27

¶28

CRL.RP No.2273/2012

¶29

and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 408 and 477-A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the concurrent findings of conviction.

¶30

Heard Sri.B.S.Kukanagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for the respondent.

¶31

Sri.B.S.Kukanagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court are contrary to the facts of the case and both the Courts have failed to apply proper law. Therefore, the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts have to be set aside.

¶32

It is submitted that the petitioner was not entrusted with any property or domain over the property. The audit report which is marked as Ex.P3 prepared by P.W.10 is not conclusive in nature and it is further submitted that the

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No.2273/2012

¶35

prosecution has failed to prove as to whether the petitioner was working as Secretary or not.

¶36

It is further submitted by the learned counsel that though the Board of Directors and the President passed a resolution stating that the petitioner be continued as Secretary, the permission from the Common Cadre Committee situated at Apex Bank has not been obtained therefore, the entrustment of the domain of the property would not survive.

¶37

It is further submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have failed to consider the evidence and facts correctly, therefore, the impugned order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

¶38

Per contra, Sri.Ramesh B.Chigari, learned HCGP justifying the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the subordinate Courts submits that, it is true that the accused/ petitioner was working as Secretary and he was handling all the transactions of the complainant bank.

¶39

It is further submitted that, since it was a stop-gap arrangement and the petitioner was entrusted with the work of in-charge Secretary, the permission from the Apex Bank may

¶40

¶41

CRL.RP No.2273/2012

¶42

not be required. The evidence on record, both oral and documentary, clearly indicates that the petitioner has committed an offence and caused loss to the exchequer of the State. Therefore, setting aside the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts would not arise.

¶43

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record, the points which arise for my consideration are,

¶44

i) Whether the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts are sustainable?

¶45

ii) Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts?

¶46

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,31,688/- and thereby he has committed offences under Sections 408 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). It is further stated that, the Secretary of the complainant - Society retired on his superannuation and one Sri.S.B.Hiremath was appointed to the vacant post on 31.05.1997 by the Common Cadre Committee.

¶47

The Society where the alleged misappropriation had taken place, passed two resolutions which are marked as Exs.P10(a)

¶48

¶49

CRL.RP No.2273/2012

¶50

and P10(b). Ex.P10(a) disclosed that the Society refused to accept Sri.S.B.Hiremath as Secretary and Ex.P10(b) disclosed that the accused should continue as Secretary-cum-Manager of the Society in terms of authorization given by the Board of Directors. As per the evidence of P.W.5 to P.W.7, it is evident that the accused was working as In-charge Secretary to the Society/Bank.

¶51

It is relevant at this stage to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh¹ wherein it is held that,

¶52

“The prosecution has to prove that the accused, a public servant or a banker or agent was entrusted with the property of which he is duly bound to account for and that he committed criminal breach of trust.”

¶53

An audit was conducted for the year 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999 and in that audit, the Auditor noticed that there was misappropriation of funds. Admittedly, it is evident that the accused was working as Secretary during that period and that misappropriation had taken place during his tenure.

¶54

1 AIR 2012 SC 3242

¶55

¶56

CRL.RP No.2273/2012

¶57

Now it is relevant to refer the evidence of P.W.10G.K.Ramapppa, Senior Auditor. According to him, he was deputed to conduct audit of the complainant - Society on 31.03.1999 by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He stated that, he verified all the documents which were produced and opined that, misappropriation had taken place for the amount as stated supra . Even though he was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit his credibility.

¶58

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that, the accused was not appointed as Secretary by the Common Cadre Committee, hence, he is not liable for the said misappropriation alleged to have taken place in the complainant – Society. It is an admitted fact that there are documents to show that he was working as Secretary and the same is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 who was working as Assistant in the said Society and P.W.7 who was the President of the complainant – Society. It is also relevant at this stage to refer the documents namely the resolution of the Society – Ex.P10(a) which is passed to send back the regular Secretary appointed by the Common Cadre Committee to the complainant – Society and Ex.P10(b) which is passed and

¶59

¶60

CRL.RP No.2273/2012

¶61

authorized the accused to work as In-charge Secretary of the complainant – Society. By virtue of the resolution Ex.P10(b), the ingredient of entrustment has been successfully proved by the prosecution. It is not enough to say that the entrustment of the property was not vested with the in-charge Secretary even though he was not properly appointed by the Common Cadre Committee. The power of the Management Committee of the Society to appoint the in-charge arrangement cannot be ignored. As such, the prosecution has proved the case that the accused was working as Secretary and during his tenure as a Secretary, as per the evidence of PW.10- Auditor, it is found that, amount of Rs.5,31,688/- has been misappropriated. Therefore, the findings recorded for conviction of the accused by the sub-ordinate Courts appear to be sound and appropriate. This Court decline to interfere with the reasons assigned by the sub-ordinate Courts for conviction of the accused.

¶62

In the light of the observation made above, the points which arose for my consideration are answered as,

¶63

Point No.(i) in the “affirmative”

¶64

Point No.(ii) in the “negative”.

¶65

¶66

CRL.RP No.2273/2012

¶67

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) The criminal revision petition filed by the

¶70

petitioner/accused stands dismissed.

¶71

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2006 in C.C No.309/2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC at Hangal and its confirmation order dated 11.09.2012 in Crl.A No.3/2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge at Haveri stands confirmed.

¶72

SD JUDGE

¶73

Veerabhadrayya S/O. Basavannayya Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerabhadrayya S/O. Basavannayya Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahimsab Mabusab Karnachi Vs the State of Karnataka

Khaleel Ahmed S/O. Allah Bakash Vs M Nagarathna W/O. Late M Sanjappa

The State of Karnataka, Vs Ramesh S/O Balappa Pammar

Siddanath S/O Tammanna Padagannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rudresh Mahadevappa Sarvi Vs the State of Karnataka

Parashuram @ Prashant Kallapa Kamble Vs State of Karnataka