Partly allowed

H. Lakshmana S/O Adeppa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2024CRL.RP/100057/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Branch Post Master convicted for misappropriating Rs.30,000 collected as recurring deposits; conviction under Section 409 IPC upheld by revision court but sentence reduced to imprisonment already undergone with enhanced fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine of Rs.30,000 imposed, default six months simple imprisonment, payable within eight weeks.

H. Lakshmana S/O Adeppa Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:481 CRL.RP No. 100057 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100057 OF 2014 (397)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H. LAKSHMANA S/O. ADEPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, BRANCH POST MASTER, R/O. GUTTIGENUR, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI T. BASAVANA GOUD, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (SIRIGERE POLICE STATION), R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRL.A.NO.66/2012 ON TH EFILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY AND THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO.86/2008 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C. SIRUGUPPA, BELLARY DISTRICT, ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY IN CRL.A.NO.66/2012 DATED 17.10.2012 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, SIRUGUPPA, BELLARY DIST., IN C.C.NO.86/2008, DATED 08.05.2012 AND SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-D:481 CRL.RP No. 100057 of 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision petition is filed with a prayer to set

¶20

aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of JMFC at Siruguppa, Bellary district in C.C.No.86/2008 dated 08.05.2012 and the judgment and order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary in Crl.Appeal No.66/2012.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Facts leading to filing of this revision petition as

¶23

revealed from the records narrated briefly are, on the basis of the complaint lodged by H.Srenivasa Rao-PW2 Inspector of Siruguppa sub-Divisional office of Post jurisdictional police, had registered FIR in Crime No.130/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). After investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC against the petitioner herein. The allegation against the petitioner is that when

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:481 CRL.RP No. 100057 of 2014

¶25

he was working as Branch Post Master, Branch Post Office at Channapatna City jurisdiction, he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which was deposited by CWs.4 to 6 to their recurring deposit account at the rate of Rs.500/- per month during the period from 27.10.2005 to 24.05.2007.

¶26

Before the Trial Court, in support of its case, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and had got marked 135 documents as Exs.P1 to P135. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the accused had not chosen to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. The judgment and order of conviction dated 08.05.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Siruguppa in C.C.No.86/2008 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.66/2012 vide order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the court of Principal

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:481 CRL.RP No. 100057 of 2014

¶28

Sessions Judge at Bellary. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶30

the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC. The evidence of PWs.1 to 14 has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. The petitioner is a Government servant and therefore, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory. There was no complaint against the petitioner nor there was any departmental enquiry held against him. Therefore, the conviction is bad.

¶31

Per contra, the learned HCGP has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below.

¶32

The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and has marked 135 documents as Exs.P1 to P35. PW1- Smt. Jayalakshmi, PW5-Smt. Suvarchala, PW6-Yammini have deposed before

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:481 CRL.RP No. 100057 of 2014

¶34

trial Court that they were regularly depositing the amount of Rs.500/- p.m. in their RD account. The accused after receiving the said amount used to give receipt to them. They had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- each. But, same was not credited to the account. They have stated that accused used to come to their house for the purpose of collecting the RD amount. They came to know about misappropriation after PW3 had made enquiry with them and informed them about misappropriation done by the accused. Though these witnesses were cross examined by the defence, nothing material has been elicited from their mouth to disbelieve them.

¶35

PW3 is Panch witnesses to Ex.P24 which is spot panchanama. PW3 and 4 are also the panch witnesses to Ex.P24 which is spot panchanama. PW10 who was working in Channapatna post office along with the accused has stated that though the petitioner had collected the RD amount from the account holders, he had not shown the same in the RD Register maintained in the office and

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:481 CRL.RP No. 100057 of 2014

¶37

misappropriated the amount of Rs.30,000/-. He also speaks about the seizure of the register and records pertaining to the misappropriated amount. PW12 is the post master who was working in Channapatna post office. In the absence of the petitioner, PW12 was in-charge of Channapatna post office. He has stated that at the time of placing him in-charge of the office, the office was locked and the postal officer broke open the lock and handed over the charge. He has also spoken about the misappropriation of Rs.30,000/- by the petitioner.

¶38

PWs.13 and 14 are the Investigating Officers who had carried out the investigation. PW2 is the informant who was working as Inspector of post office at Siruguppa. He has supported the case of the prosecution and he has stated that there was a complaint against the petitioner that he was unauthorizedly absent from the duties. When he visited the post office, the same was locked, therefore, the lock was broke upon and after verification of the records, he came to know about

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:481 CRL.RP No. 100057 of 2014

¶40

misappropriation done by the petitioner. The prosecution in addition to examining the witnesses, has also produced voluminous documentary evidence before the trial Court in support of its case. The passbook of PW1, PW5 and PW6 were also produced. Even ledger extracts of these witnesses was produced before the trial Court as Exs.P9 to P22. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and has convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court has been upheld by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.no.66/2012. The Appellate Court also has meticulously re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has held that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below against the petitioner.

¶41

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:481 CRL.RP No. 100057 of 2014

¶42

Insofar as the sentence passed against the

¶43

petitioner is concerned, the trial Court has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. The said order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. The records would reveal that the accused was in custody for a total period of one year four months in the present case. The allegation against him is that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.30,000/which he had collected from PW1, PW5 and PW6 towards deposit in the recurring account. The complaint against the petitioner was filed in the year 2007. More than 16 years have lapsed from the date of complaint. Therefore, at this juncture, it would not be necessary to once again send the accused behind the bars. He has already undergone imprisonment for a period of nearly one year four months.

¶44

Under the circumstances, I am of the view that if the sentence passed against the petitioner is modified,

¶45

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:481 CRL.RP No. 100057 of 2014

¶46

the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Revision petition is partly allowed.

¶49

The judgment and order of conviction dated 08.05.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Siruguppa in C.C.No.86/2008, confirmed in Crl.A.No.66/2012 vide order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the court of Principal Sessions Judge at Bellary, is upheld.

¶50

The order of sentence passed by the said Courts against the petitioner is modified and the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.30,000/and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The petitioner shall deposit the fine

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC-D:481 CRL.RP No. 100057 of 2014

¶52

10 -

¶53

amount before the trial Court within a period of

¶54

eight weeks from today.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Kgk/Vmb

H. Lakshmana S/O Adeppa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H. Lakshmana S/O Adeppa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Shahid S/O Nisar Ahmed Yamkanmaradi Vs Smt. Naziya Parveen W/O Mohammed Shahid Yamkanmardi

Udaykumar @ Uday Shivyogi Danannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanju S/O. Goutam Tikota Vs the State of Karnataka by

Maruti S/O Tippanna Kattimani Vs Smt. Premakka W/O. Maruti Kattimani

Smt. Gayatri Bheemappa Vs v Bheemappa

Sri.Parappa S/O Mahalingappa Hosur Vs Sri.Shrimant S/O Basappa Gudlamani