Bangalore District Court
Basavaraju B Doddamani vs T Babu on 23 January, 2024
1
C.C.No.6052/2017
KABC030131472017
Presented on : 20-02-2017
Registered on : 20-02-2017
Decided on : 23-01-2024
Duration : 6 years, 11 months, 3 days
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
Dated this Monday the 23rd day of January, 2024
Present : Shreyansh Doddamani
III ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C.No.6052/2017
State by : Subramanyanagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused T.Babu
S/o Thippeswamy,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.46/4, G.S.V. Building,
H.G.R.Colony, Gokala 3rd Phase,
Yeshvantapura, Bengaluru.
(Repted. By Sri.H.K.Chandrashekara
Reddy Adv,)
2
C.C.No.6052/2017
Complainant Name : Sri.Basavaraju .B Doddamani
Offences punishable 408 and 420 of IPC
under Section
Date of Evidence 29.05.2019
Commencing
Date of Evidence Ending 19.07.2023
Charge Accused is pleaded not guilty
Final Order The Accused is convicted for
the offences punishable under
section 408 and 420 of IPC.
Judgment Date 23.01.2024
(Shreyansh Doddamani)
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.,
Bengaluru.
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The Sub Inspector of Police of Subramanyanagar Police Station arising out of their police station Crime No.09/2016 filed a charge sheet against the accused for his alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 408, 420 of Indian Penal Code.3
C.C.No.6052/2017
2. The Prosecution case in a nutshell is that the accused was working as team leader in CES department at ISCON Temple Society, situated at Rajajinagar, Bengalure which was coming under the limits of Subramanyanagar Police Station. The accused was entrusted with collecting fees from the various private schools in cash and cheque and submitted the cash to cashier and cheques to the accounts department. But the accused during the period from 25.09.2014 to 13.11.2015 collected the amount of Rs.3,93,745/ in respect of receipt no. 3723 to 3749, 4820 to 5251, 7282 to 9896 and 11355 to 13181 not deposited to the cash department, he misappropriated the said amount for his personal use and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 408 and 420 of Indian Penal Code ( herein after called as IPC).
3. On the basis of Police report this court having taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences registered the present case.
4. During the investigation the accused was arrested and brought before this court. Having allowed his bail application the court released him on bail. 4
C.C.No.6052/2017
5. Having supplied the prosecution papers to the accused and having heard both the sides this court has framed charges against the accused for his alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 408 and 420 of IPC. Having understood the charges read over and explained by this court the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges examined all six witnesses cited in the charge sheet as PW1 to
6. The prosecution has also relied upon Exs.P1 to P75 documents.
7. Incriminating circumstances as appeared against the accused in the prosecution evidence read over and explained to him. Having understood the same he has given his statement under section 313 of Cr.PC and the same has been duly recorded by this court. The accused himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to 3. When it was posted for further chief of DW.1 the advocate for accused filed memo as evidence of DW.1 may be discarded and no evidence his side.
5
C.C.No.6052/2017
8. The court has heard the arguments from both the sides.
9. The following points arise for court's consideration, POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubts, proves that the accused was working as team leader in CES department and he was entrusted with collecting the fees from the various schools and credited the same to cash department but the accused during the period from 25.09.2014 to 13.11.2015 collected the amount of Rs.3,93,745/ from the various schools as per receipt no. 3723 to 3749, 4820 to 5251, 7282 to 9896 and 11355 to 13181 and not deposited to the cash department, he misappropriated the said amount for his personal use and thereby he has committed the offences punishable under section 406 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubts, proves that the accused with an intention to cheat the ISKON Temple society, dishonestly 6 C.C.No.6052/2017 collected the amount from the various schools, but not deposited the same to cash department and he misused the said amount and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under section 420 of IPC?
3. What order?
10. The court's answer to the above points is as follows;
Point No.1 and 2 : In the Affirmative, Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following ;
REASONS
11. Point No.1 and 2: The prosecution case is that accused was working as team leader in CES department at ISKON Temple Society, situated at Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. The accused was entrusted with collecting fees from the various private schools in cash and cheque and submitted the cash to cashier and cheques to the accounts department. But the accused during the period from 25.09.2014 to 13.11.2015 collected an amount of Rs.3,93,745/ from various schools in respect of receipt No. 3723 to 3749, 4820 to 5251, 7282 to 9896 and 11355 to 13181, but the accused not deposited the 7 C.C.No.6052/2017 said amount to the cash department, he misappropriated the said amount for his personal use and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 408 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
12. Upon the complaint lodged by PW1 (CW1) by name Basavaraju B Doddamani, who was the Manager in Finance and Accounts at ISCON Temple Society Bengaluru, the criminal law was set into motion. The PSI i.e., PW.3 having takenup the investigation conducted the Spot Panchanama in the office of the ISCON Temple Society in the presence of PW.2 (CW2) and PW.4 (CW.3), collected the documents and recorded the statements of CW2 to CW4 and due to the transfer he has handed over the file to PW.6, he received the file, verified and submitted the charge sheet.
13. The accused admitted that he was working as Team Leader in the CES Department at ISKON Temple Society. He also admitted that he was entrusted with collecting cultural activities fees from various schools and credited the same to cash department. But he denied that the allegations about misappropriation. He has taken defence that he was not 8 C.C.No.6052/2017 concerned with cash department. He was not working as a Manager in accounts department. He was credited the amount collected from various schools through one Sunil to one Geetha who was accountant received the same. He has not committed any offence as alleged. One Sunil has committed the offence in this regard against him also case is registered in Crime No.2/2016 in Subramanyanagar PS. He promptly worked in the ISKON Temple Society in this regard they have issued Good conduct certificate and also increment.
14. The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that all the prosecution witnesses supported to the case and they have produced all the receipt with accused collected form the various schools but not credited to the cash department which are marked as Ex.P20 to 74. The accused not denied the said receipt but he contended that he submitted the same before the cash department through one Sunil. If he submitted he would have produced yellow receipts which issued by the cash department to the accused. But the accused not produced any documents. Further the accused admittedly working as Team Leader before that he was working 9 C.C.No.6052/2017 as Marketing Executive. But in the charge sheet the Investigating Officer wrongly mentioned as the accused was working as a Manager. In the complaint the complainant clearly states that he (complainant) was working as a Manager in Finance and Accounts and accused was working as Team Leader in CES Department. But the Investigating Officer not verified the complaint properly and not read the complaint properly, he mentioned in the FIR as well as charge sheet as the accused was working as a Manager in the Finance and Accounts Department instead of working as Team Leader in CES Department. Ex.P5 clearly reveals that the accused was appointed as Senior Associates Cultural Education Services in the year 2007. Ex.P3 is the resume for the accused. The accused also produced original letter of appointment, wherein he appointed as Senior Associates Cultural Education Services in E12 Grade with effect from First April. He has also produced letter issued by the ISKON Temple regarding new designation of accused as Senior Associates from Junior Executive Department Cultural Education Services Cadre. These documents clearly reveals that the accused appointed as 10 C.C.No.6052/2017 Junior Executive and promoted as Senior Associates in Cultural Education Services Department. The I.O. collected all necessary documents, which are marked as Ex.P4 to 70. Ex.17 is the Audit report, wherein the details of deficit amount with receipt has been mentioned, it clearly depicts that the accused misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,93,745/ collected from various schools in respect of receipt no. 3723 to 3749, 4820 to 5251, 7282 to 9896 and 11355 to 13181 is tallied with Ex.P20 to 74. Thus, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence, he sought for convict the accused for the offences punishable under section 408 and 420 of IPC.
15. The learned advocate for accused argued that the complainant is no way related to the cash department, hence, he has no locus standy to lodge the complaint. Further there is 3 months delay in lodging the complaint but delay has not been explained. Therefore, the case filed by the PW.1 Basavaraju is not maintainable. He further argued except receipts Ex.P20 to 74 no other documents produced to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused admittedly handed over the receipt 11 C.C.No.6052/2017 books to the complainant, but they had not verified the receipts with the said book. If they have verified they could have filed complaint immediately. No documents placed to show that the accused misused the amount. In all receipts the cashier Geeta signed, but the cashier not made as witness. The I.O. has not taken her statement. The complainant himself stated that the signature of Geeta were forged on receipts. But her signature not taken and not send to FSL for comparison. The I.O. has not taken the experts opinion. The PW.2 in his cross examination admitted that his department and department of accused were different, so his evidence is not reliable. PW.5 turned hostile. The factum of entrusted the work to the accused is not established. Factum of misappropriation of property not proved. Therefore, he sought for acquittal. He relied on following decisions;
1) 2013 Cri.L.J. 891.
2) AIR 1981 SC 1646.
3) AIR 1980 SC 476.
16. The prosecution had examined in all six witnesses as PW.1 to 6 cited in the charge sheet. The PW.1 Basavaraj 12 C.C.No.6052/2017 Doddamani is informant, he was working as Manager in Finanace and Account at ISCON Temple Society. He reproduced the prosecution version in his chief examination. He deposed that the accused was working as team leader in Cultural and Education Services at their society. The accused was entrusted with collect the fees from the various schools and deposited to the cash department. In the year 201415 the accused collected the cash from the schools but not credited the same to the cash department. The accused used the said amount for his personal use. After lodging the complaint the police visited to their society and conducted panchanama as per Ex.P2 and collected the documents. He identified the documents i.e., appointment letter of accused, Biodata of accused, certified copies of marks cards of accused, identity of accused, temple service pass etc., which are marked as Ex.P3 to 5 and 7 to 13. He further stated that he had also produced letter as per audit report to the police, which is marked as Ex.P14. He also identified the certified copy of registration of society which is marked as Ex.P15. He identified the Audit report which is marked as Ex.P17. He also identified the 13 C.C.No.6052/2017 original receipts in which receipts amount has not been credited to cash department. Said receipts are marked as Exs.P20 to 74.
17. The PW.1 crossexamined by the advocate for accused, wherein he said that the receipt book containing 4 color copies for one payment, one is White, one is Yellow, one is Blue and another one is Pink. Out of which White color receipt is for School, Yellow receipt is for cash department, Blue color receipt is for department copy and Pink color receipt left with the receipt book. The accused has to submit the Pink receipt to the head of department. The accused not deposited the collected cash in cash department, Yellow receipts not available in the cash department. The learned advocate suggested that in the receipts there is signature of Geeta who received the cash. But PW.1 denied and said that he can not say that it is signature of Geeta. Further he denied the suggestions of the learned advocate for accused.
18. CW2 Basavaraju S/o Somappa was examined as PW2. The PW2 is being the circumstantial witness as well as panchanama witness in this case. He deposed that in the year 14 C.C.No.6052/2017 201415 he was working as a Assistant Manager in Finance and Accounts at ISKON Temple Society. The PW1 was Manager. The accused was working as Manager and a Team Leader. In the Sankeerthana Seva Trust division in the temple they had arranged the cultural programs in various schools. The accused collected the fees from the schools and deposited the same to the temple. The accused was not submitted the receipts, the accused misappropriated an amount of Rs.4 lakhs. He was not credited the said amount to the temple. He has not submitted some receipts. When PW1 was verifying the receipts it found that some receipts not submitted and amount not credited. Therefore, he filed the complaint. The Police visited the office he had singed to the Ex.P2 panchanama he identified his signature which is marked as Ex.P2(b). The accused misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,93,745/. In the cross examination he said that his department and the department of accused was different, but the accused collected the fees and he had to deposited the said amount to cash department but amount not received in the cash department. Hence, he came to know about this incident. He admitted that if cashier 15 C.C.No.6052/2017 received the amount he issued the acknowledgment. He further said that who raised the receipt could deposit the amount in the cash counter and it is their responsibility. He further said that the Pink colour receipt issued by cashier by putting his signature to who credit the amount. The advocate suggested that the casher Geetha signed to the receipts but he denied and the said that the said signature is not belongs to the Geetha. He further said that if Geetha signed on Pink receipt the Yellow colour receipt should available in the cash department but the Yellow receipt not available in the cash department. On that base he was deposing that the accused not credited the amount in the respect of receipt shown to him. The learned counsel for accused specifically suggested that the accused credited the amount through Sunil before the cash department. But PW2 denied the same.
19. The another panchanama witness and as well as circumstantial witness. CW3 examined as PW4. The PW4 deposed that he was working in ISKON Temple as a Senior Executive in Finance Department from 2013 to 2016. At that time the accused was working in Cultural Education 16 C.C.No.6052/2017 Department. He was a team leader to school programs like heritage fest. He used to conduct programs in school and in temple premises. The accused was incharge of collecting money from schools and children who attended the program and submit it to the cashier. When they were verifying their receipt in usual routine, then found that some of the receipts were missing. The receipts containing three copies one white, one yellow and one pink. He further said that he cannot say the exact number of receipts because it was three years old. The accused not handed over Rs.3,94,000/ to the casher when they asked with the accused. He admitted that he did not gave the cash and he will return the cash. Therefore, they were waiting for four months when the accused not returned the money the PW1 lodged the complaint to the Police. He identified his signature on Ex.P2.
20. In the cross examination he admitted that he did not have direct connection regarding receipt and payment of money, but the finance department is connected to it. It is internal part of the finance department. He further said that he could not read Kannada but he speak in Kannada. The 17 C.C.No.6052/2017 contents of Mahazar explained by Police in English then he signed to it. Further he denied the suggestions.
21. PW5 was also one of the worker of ISKON Temple Society. He deposed that he was working in the ISKON Temple from 2006 to 2008 as an Event Manager. The accused was working with him. The accused was incharge of took the children from schools to attend the program and competition. In the year 200608 accused collected the money from school children and paid to the ISKON Temple in accounts section. He was also collected the money and paid the same to the accounts section. After 2008 he left the job. Hence, he does not know about the present case. The learned Sr.APP cross examined above witness at length, but nothing has been elicited from his mouth in favour of prosecution. However on the evidence of PW5 it clears that the accused was entrusted with collect the money from the school and children and to paid the said money in the cash department.
22. CW5 - PW3 is the investigating officer. The PW3 Sri.Harsha K.N. deposed by narrating the manner, in which he conducted investigation. He identified all the receipts and 18 C.C.No.6052/2017 documents collected during the investigation. He identified audit report and statements collected during the investigation. In the cross examination he admitted that accused was working as a team leader in ISKON Temple Society as per complaint. But in the charge sheet he mentioned as accused was working as Manager. He further states that on the basis of the receipt book No.138 and book No.7 he registered the FIR. He said that he has not recorded the statement of accused. The advocate for accused specifically suggests that the accused deposited the amount which he received from schools to the cash department through Sunil and it was kept in the cub board which was handed over to the accused. For which PW3 said that he does not know. Further he denied the suggestions.
23. PW6 is the investigating officer he deposed that he received filed from CW5 i.e., PW3 on 06.12.2016 verified and submitted the charge sheet. In the cross examination he said that in another case complaint given by one Geetha they have send the signatures admitted to disputed signature to FSL for expert's opinion. But in the present case hey have not send any signatures to FSL. The advocate for accused specifically 19 C.C.No.6052/2017 suggested that one Sunil has committed the offences and he refer the name of accused T.Babu, even Sunil confession to his offence they have not recorded his confession. For which PW6 answered he does not know about the same. The learned advocate for accused suggests that another case at Subramanyanagar PS registered against the Sunil on 11.01.2016. But the PW6 answered that he does not know because he had charged in the month of October 2016. Further he denied the suggestions.
24. It is relevant to note here that on careful reading of the cross examination it is undisputed fact that the accused working as team leader in CES Department and he was entrusted with collect the amount from various schools and children by cash or cheque and remit the same to cash department with receipts and he was also incharge of conduct the school programs. The investigating officer in the charge sheet specifically mentioned that the accused was working as Manager in Finance and Accounts Department. Actually the PW1 in his complaint i.e., Ex.P1 stated that he was working as a Manager in Finance and Accounts Department and accused 20 C.C.No.6052/2017 was working as a team leader in CES Department. But the investigating officer by oversight mentioned the designation of accused as a Manager instead of team leader in CES Department. It is not seriously disputed. The said mistake is typographically error. It is curable one. Only on this point the accused cannot be acquitted. Ex.P3 to 5 clears that the accused was appointed as a executive associate and in the year 2010 he was again appointed as senior associate cultural educational services in E12 Grade and it is also called as team leader. Ex.P7 to 13 are the documents of accused, those documents are not disputed.
25. The accused not specifically denied that he was not collected the money from various schools. On plain reading of cross examination of PW1 to 6 the accused specifically contended that he was collected the money from various schools as per receipts Ex.P20 to 74. But he credited the amount through one Sunil. The said Sunil has misappropriated money but the accused not misappropriated. The accused in this regard also examined as DW1 and in the chief examination deposed that one Sunil was also working as 21 C.C.No.6052/2017 junior executive he collected the fees from schools and submitted to the accounting section to Geetha. The said Geetha after receiving the money issued receipt to the Sunil. He i.e., the accused was also collected the money from the various schools and submit it to the Geetha and obtained receipt. But in some time when he was having more work he submitted collected amount to one Sunil and through Sunil he submitted the amount to Geetha. The said Sunil submitted the cash to Geetha and received the receipt. The said Sunil misappropriated an amount of Rs.14 lakhs in this regard the case has been registered in the Subramanyanagar PS as per Ex.D1 and 2. The charge sheet has been filed by Ex.D3. He is specifically deposed that he submitted Ex.P32 to 74 bills with amount to Sunil but Sunil has not submitted to Geetha. On 19.07.2023 the advocate for accused for further examination of DW1 prays time. Thereafter, on 04.09.2023 filed memo by stating that the accused not wish to lead his defence. Hence, already led evidence may be discarded. But as per the section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence given by parity of the proceedings i.e., witness or complainant or accused become 22 C.C.No.6052/2017 relevant in the two situations. One is in a subsequent to Judicial proceedings and another one is any in a later stage of the some Judicial proceedings. Recording truth of the facts which it states that consequential evidence given by witness under oath cannot be actually discarded or expunged or eschewed as it is a relevant piece of evidence and fit for appreciation hence the evidence of DW1 cannot be discarded. His evidence clearly shows that the accused not deposited the amount to cash department.
26. Even though the evidence of DW1 not considered the accused in the cross of PW2 specifically suggested that at Para No.5 page No.4 the accused credited the collected amount through one Sunil which read as under;
ಆರರಪಯ ಈ ಅವಧಯಲಲ ಸಸ ರಕರಸದ
ಹಣವನನ ತನನ ಸಹ ಕಲಸಗರನದ ಸನರಲ
ಮಖನ ಹಣವನನ ಅಕಕಟಟ ಡಪರರಮಕಟ
ಗ ಕಳಹಸ ರಸರದಯನನ ಸಸ ರಕರಸ ಆರರಪಗ
ನರಡದ ಕಬರಡರನಲಲ ಯ ಇರಸಲಗದ ಎಕದರ
ಅದರ ಬಗಗ ನನಗ ಮಹತ ಇಲಲ .
23
C.C.No.6052/2017
27. Accordingly, the accused also suggested to the investigating officer that the accused submit the collected amount to the cash department through Sunil which reads as under;
ಆರರಪಯ ಸನರಲ ರವರ ಮಲಕ ಹಣವನನ ಕಟಟ ದದ ರ ಸಹ ಇಲಲ ವಕದ ಸಳಳ ಸಕಕ ಹಳತತ ದದ ರರ ಎಕದರ ಸರಯಲಲ . ನಮಮ ಕಕ ಶ ಬಬ ಕಚ ಗ ಹಳದ ಬಣಣ ದ ರಸರದ ಹಣ ಕಟಟ ದ ಬಗಗ ಬದದದ ರ ಸಹ ಇಲಲ ವಕದ ಸಳಳ ಸಕಕ ಹಳತತ ದದ ರರ ಎಕದರ ಸರಯಲಲ .
28. These suggestions clearly reveals that the accused not deposited the amount to the cash department. The suggestions are the reflection of the case of accused. The said suggestions clearly reveals that the accused misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,93,745/ but he tried to escape by saying name of Sunil based on case registered against him in Cr.No.3/2016 in Subramanyanagar PS.
29. The prosecution has produced Ex.P17 audit report wherein the amount with receipt numbers and date which was not submitted to the cash department is furnished as per Ex.P 24 C.C.No.6052/2017 18 and 19. The prosecution has also produced Ex.P20 to 74 receipts. On careful perusal of the audit report Ex.P17, 18 and 19 and receipts Exs.P20 to 74 are extracted as under. 25
C.C.No.6052/2017
30. On careful perusal of Ex.P20 to 74 and Ex.P17 to 19 audit reports, the receipts tallied each other and amount is also tallied as Rs.3,93,745/.
31. In order to sustain conviction under section 408 of IPC the prosecution has to prove the ingredients namely the accused a servant or an agent was entrusted with the property which his duty bond and he duty bound to do and the accused has committed criminal breach of trust. 26
C.C.No.6052/2017
32. In the present case on hand as per oral as well as documentary evidence Ex.P3 to 5 it clears that the accused was servant i.e., employee i.e., working in ISKON Temple Society as a team leader in CES Department and he was entrusted that collect the money from various schools for perform of cultural programs and etc,. As per Exs.P20 to 74 the accused was collected the amount for the period from 20.05.2014 to 30.11.2015 as per Ex.P20 to 74. But he has not deposited the said amount to the cash department. The learned advocate for accused vehemently argued that in the Ex.P20 to 74 accountant Geetha was signed but the investigating officer not examined the said Geetha and not recorded her statement and not verified the signature. But it is specific case of the accused that the accused submitted the cash collected through Ex.P20 to 74 through Sunil. If he contended that he directly submitted the cash to Geetha accountant then examination of Geetha is required. In the present case the question of verification of signature of Geetha and statement of Geetha is not required as accused not submitted the cash directly to Geetha as per his 27 C.C.No.6052/2017 evidence. Hence. The arguments of learned counsel does not holds water.
33. The learned advocate during the argument specifically argued that the prosecution has not proved the entrustment and relied on AIR 1981 SC 1646 in the case of Janeshwar Das Aggarwal Vs State of UP, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to held the conviction under section 409 the prosecution must prove two essential facts. One is the factum of entrustment and the factum of misappropriation of entrusted articles. On careful perusal of the above decision and present case on hand the facts and circumstances are very different. In the said case the accused was Government servant and the prosecution failed to prove the entrustment. But in the present case on hand accused himself admitted that he was working as a Team Leader in CES Department and collected the money from various schools. It clears that the prosecution proved the entrustment as well as the accused misappropriated the money as already discussed above. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 28
C.C.No.6052/2017
34. The learned advocate for accused also relied on the Judgment of Om Prakash V/s State of Haryana reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 476. Wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delayed payments or no payments or false payments of TA Bills does not means misappropriated. In the present case on hand there is no delayed bill. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the said case and the present case very different. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
35. The learned advocate for accused also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Ramedeo Singh V/s State of Bihar and others reported in 2013 Crl.L.J.891, wherein Hon'ble High Court held that to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 406 and 420 there was business relationship between the accused and complainant and prosecution has to established contents of section 415 and section 405 of IPC. Otherwise accused cannot be convicted. In the present case on hand the prosecution proved the entrustment and misappropriation as provided under section 405 and 408 of IPC. The prosecution has also 29 C.C.No.6052/2017 proved the intention of the accused as provided under section 415 of IPC. Hence, the above case decision is not helpful to the accused.
36. In over all consideration on perusal of Ex.P17, 18, 19 and Ex.P20 to 74 the amount is tallied. If the accused paid the amount to the cash department the signature of authorized by and entered by and received by should be appeared in the receipts. But those columns in the Ex.P20 to 74 are blank. If the accused received the Yellow receipt he would have produced before the court. If he paid the amount he was having the yellow receipt. But he has not produced any yellow receipts which issued by cash department to the accused. Therefore, the documents clearly shows that the accused misappropriated an amount of Rs3,93,745/. Testimony of PW1 to 6 and Ex.P1 to 74 corroborated as each other. Hence, on th evidence of all prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence it is sufficient to believe that the accused committed the offence punishable under section 408 of IPC.
30
C.C.No.6052/2017
37. In order to bring home the offence punishable under section 420 the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients.
(i) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the person deceiving and to deliver the property.
(ii) Decide to cause the inducement some one.
(iii) The inducement so caused was intentional.
(iv) The person induced, committed or omitted to do something that they would not have done otherwise.
(v) The act or omission either caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in their body, mind, reputation or property.
38. In the present case on hand admittedly the accused was working in ISKON Temple Society and has already discussed above he misappropriated the amount. It clearly shows that his intention in order to cheat the complainant company he misappropriated the said amount. The accused collected the amount from the various schools by saying that he 31 C.C.No.6052/2017 deposited the same to the cash department of ISKON Temple but he misappropriated the same. As such the Section 420 is also attracted to the case on hand.
39. On the evidence of prosecution witness and documentary evidence the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, this court has answered Point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
40. Point No.3: For the aforesaid reasons, this court proceed to pass the following;
::ORDER::
In exercising the powers conferred under Section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 408 and 420 of IPC.
For hearing on sentence.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him on computer, corrected, then signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd Day of January, 2024) (Shreyansh Doddamani) III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate., Bengaluru.32
C.C.No.6052/2017 ::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 : Sri.Basavaraj Doddamani. PW2 : Sri.Basavaraju.
PW3 : Sri.Harsha K.N. PW4: Sri.Yuvaraj.
PW5: Sri.Manohar.
PW6: Sri.Santhosha Rama.
2. List of documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint dated 28.01.2016. Ex.P1(a) and (b): Signatures. Ex.P2: Spot Panchanama. Ex.P2(a) to (d): Signatures. Ex.P3:True copy of Resume Ex.P4: True copy of Voter Identity Card.
Ex.P5: True copy of Letter of Appointment. Ex.P6: Appointment letter dated 15.12.2010. Ex.P7: True copy of SSLC Marks Card.
Ex.P8: True copy of PUC Marks Card.
Ex.P9 to 11: True copy of B.A. Marks Card Ex.P12: True copy of Personal Information. 33
C.C.No.6052/2017 Ex.P13: True copy of application form for temple service pass.
Ex.P14: Letter to PSI of Subramanya Nagar PS dated 02.06.2016 Ex.P14(a) : Signatures Ex.P15: Copy of Certificate of Registration. Ex.P16: FIR in Cr.No.0009/2016 Ex.P16(a): Signatures Ex.P17: Auditors' Report Ex.P18 and 19: Annexures to the Audit report. Ex.P20 to 74: Receipts.
Ex.P75: Part of the statement of Sri.Manohar.
3. List of witnesses examined for the defence:
DW1: T.Babu
4. List of Material Objects on the side of the defence:
Ex.D1: Certified copy of Complaint dated 11.01.2016.
Ex.D2: Certified copy of FIR.
Ex.D3: Certified copy of Charge sheet.
(Shreyansh Doddamani) III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate., Bengaluru.
34
C.C.No.6052/2017 ORDER ON SENTENCE PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Heard the learned Senior APP and the counsel for the accused on quantum of sentence.
The learned Senior APP has submitted that the accused person
committed the offence punishable U/s.
408 and 420 of IPC. The above offences are against the society and economic offences. He misappropriated amount of children. The offence committed by the accused person is serious in nature and it is having huge impact on the society.
Moreover no leniency should be shown to the accused person, as the accused person having full knowledge regarding the consequences of the acts, have committed the same. Therefore, he prayed to the Hon'ble Court to impose maximum punishment with rigorous imprisonment.
On the other hand the counsel of accused has argued that, his family is 35 C.C.No.6052/2017 depending on him. And it is his fist offence. The accused is responsible person and come from reputed family in the society. He is the earning member of his family. He is having a wife and two children and aged mother. His father died four days back. If the maximum punishment is imposed, his family members put to starvation and greater hardship. Hence he prayed to lenient view may be taken and minimum sentence may be imposed.
This Court has come to the conclusion that the accused has
committed the above offences. The above offences are against the society and are serious in nature.
Therefore, after considering the mitigating and aggravating factors, this court is of the opinion that the accused shall get appropriate punishment in view of the nature of the offences and it's impact on the society. Though accused was held guilt, if he be awarded with lesser 36 C.C.No.6052/2017 punishment, then the wrong message will go to society and there will not be any respect to the law and faith on the system. This kind of offences shall be dealt with severally, as the accused trying to snatched the money of temple which belongs to poor children. Hence, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine amount of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under section 408 of Indian Penal Code. In default of fine accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine amount of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. In default of fine accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.37
C.C.No.6052/2017 All sentence run concurrently. The bail bond and personal bond of accused stands canceled.
Office is directed to Supply copy of Judgment to the accused with free of cost.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected, then signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd Day of January, 2024).
(Shreyansh Doddamani) III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate., Bengaluru.