A postmaster accused of misappropriating Rs.1,40,200/- in savings deposits was acquitted by the Trial Court; the First Appellate Court convicted him under Sections 406 and 409 IPC. The High Court found no error in the re-appreciation of evidence and dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:13672 CRL.RP No. 371 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 371 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAVEED S., AMICUS CURIAE )
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.86/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.2195/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI-KODAGU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:13672 CRL.RP No. 371 of 2017
ORDER
Heard the Amicus Curie for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
have registered the case and investigated the matter and charge-sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections
NC: 2024:KHC:13672 CRL.RP No. 371 of 2017
406, 409, 420 and 468 of IPC. The accused was secured, he did not plead guilty, hence, the prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P39(a). The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and he denied all incriminating circumstances put to him.
NC: 2024:KHC:13672 CRL.RP No. 371 of 2017
deposited the amount and entries are not found in the records maintained by the Post Office and particularly taken note of Exs.P29 to P34 and also considered the passbooks and S.B. Journal Ledger Exs.P4 to P6 as well as daily account registers Exs.P7 and Ex.P8 and not taken entry with regard to amount of Rs.1,40,200/- and the same has been considered by the First Appellate Court, particularly in Para No.21. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate Court.
Office and also witnesses P.Ws.1, 4 to 7 have specifically deposed before the Court with regard to the payment. P.W.1 also categorically deposed that he used to save money from her coolie work and was depositing into the savings account since ten years and the petitioner had collected the money paid by her and made entries in her passbook and the same is marked as Ex.P1. Apart from that, P.W.4 deposed that he had deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- in his savings account at the Post Office and relevant entries are made in the passbook which is marked as Ex.P33 and during the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 4 also, an admission is made that he had received the entire money. P.W.5 also deposed that he had deposited Rs.27,500/- and her passbook is marked as Ex.P34 and so also, P.W.6 also had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- and her passbook is marked as Ex.P29 and P.W.7 had deposited Rs.27,000/- and entry is found in Ex.P32 and during the course of cross-examination, the accused not disputes the entries made in all these documents. In Para No.20, the First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that P.W.2, who is the Inspector of the Post Offices had investigated the matter and lodged the complaint as per the direction of the superior. The First
Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of evidence available on record, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 to 8 as well as P.W.2, reassessed the evidence on record and comes to the conclusion that when misappropriation was noticed, immediately complaint was lodged. Hence, the very reasoning given by the Trial Court that there was delay cannot be a ground in a case of misappropriation and charges are leveled against the accused.
and the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is erroneous and the First Appellate Court rightly applied its judicious mind and taken note of factual aspects and when deposit was made by the public, public money was misappropriated by the official of Postal Department with whom they had entrusted money and the same was misused. Hence, the First Appellate Court rightly taken note of ingredients of offence under Section 406 of IPC as well as 409 of IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:13672 CRL.RP No. 371 of 2017
public money was siphoned by the official of the Postal Department.
following:
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court rightly reversed the Trial Court's acquittal and convicted the accused under Sections 406 and 409 IPC for misappropriation of postal deposits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. Venkatakrishnan vs CBIReferred¶8
(2009) 11 SCC 737 · Who else cites this
State by PSI, Ilkal, Bijapur District vs HanamappaReferred¶8
ILR 2000 KAR 1974 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. vs Lakhan Lal SaxenaReferred¶8
2005 SCC ONLINE ALL 734 · Who else cites this
M.C. Gangadharappa vs State by Lingadahalli Police, K.R. Pet TalukReferred¶8
2002 (5) KAR.L.J. 237
7 provisions across 2 enactments
H.G.Dharmendra
The State by Suntikoppa PS represented by S.P.P. High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore
H.P.Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
