Madras High Court
N.Moorthy vs State Represented By on 11 April, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2019
N.Moorthy ...Petitioner / Accused
Vs.
State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Thiruvarur. ... Respondent / Complainant
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.192 of 2014
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur and confirmed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in C.A.No.24 of
2017 on 14.11.2017 and to revise the judgement and conviction
imposed on the petitioner and consequently acquit the petitioner
from the charge under Section 409 IPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramamurthy
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
*****
____________
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No 1 of 7
Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed against the Judgment dated 14.11.2017 made in Appeal No.24 of 2017 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police registered a case against the revision petitioner in Cr.No.47 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 120(b), 409, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467, 477(A) and 475 IPC. After investigation, the respondent police has laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur. The learned Magistrate after completing the trial, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 409 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 24 days and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 14 days for the offence under Section 409 IPC and acquitted him for the offences under Sections 120(b), 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w 477(A) and 475 IPC against which, the revision petitioner preferred the Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.24 of 2017 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.
3. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 ____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 2 of 7 Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2019 were marked. On the side of the defence, no one was examined and no document was produced.
4. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments and perusing the materials available on record, found that there was no merit in the appeal. Therefore the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed, against which, the revision petitioner preferred this present criminal revision before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the revision petitioner was working as a cashier in Thiruvarur Municipality. Though the Courts found that the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 409 IPC, entrustment was not proved. Therefore, Section 409 IPC would not get attracted. Both the Courts below failed to consider that he has not committed the offence under Section 409 IPC, which warrants interference.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that he was working as cashier in Thiruvarur Municipality. Though he collected money on various ____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 3 of 7 Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2019 occasions misappropriated the amounts received from the public, he has not remitted back the money to the Government account. The Chitta Ex.P.8 clearly shows that the amounts mentioned in the said challans are not remitted in the bank. He has failed to remit back the same either to the Government Account or deposited the same. Therefore, he committed the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC which does not warrant interference.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. On a perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the petitioner is working as a cashier in Municipality. He collected the money at the relevant point of time and not only he failed to remit the money to the Government Account but also he has created a forged document to establish that he has remitted money. Therefore, entrustment and misappropriation are made out under Section 409 IPC. In this case, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 8 show that the revision petitioner as a public servant was entrusted with the money and he had misappropriated a huge amount on various dates. Once, a public servant is entrusted with the public money and omits to deposit the same into the Government Account, it is a ____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 4 of 7 Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2019 clear case of misappropriation. It is not in one occasion, but on several dates, the revision petitioner, in the capacity of cashier had with dishonest intention misappropriated the Government money by not depositing into the Bank and affixed the challans without bank seal as mentioned above. Therefore, both the Court below found that the revision petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 409 of IPC. He has created a false document without bank seals. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and this Court cannot exercise the power of the appellate Court and reassess the entire evidence. This Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.
In the result, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.
11.04.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dh ____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 5 of 7 Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2019 To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur.
2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.
____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 6 of 7 Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2019 P.VELMURUGAN, J., dh Crl.R.C.No.149 of 2019 11.04.2019 ____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 7 of 7