THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos. 1652 of 2003 and 1653 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: 1. These two revision cases arise out of common judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos. 605 of 2001 and 606 of 2001 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No.1652 of 2003 is A.1 and the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No.1653 of 2003 is A.2. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, P.W.1 is the Chairman, P.W.2 is the Secretary and P.Ws.3 to 6 are employees, of Repalle Co-operative Bank Limited, Repalle. The revision petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are Bill Collector and Attender respectively, of the Bank, and they were authorized to collect day deposit collections from the members and non-members through a scheme. They were specifically instructed to enter the day collections from the members and non-members in the ledger maintained by them and also other ledgers maintained by the bank. But, the revision petitioners used to enter the collections in their respective ledgers only. On coming to know about the misappropriation of funds of the co- operative bank, P.W.1 questioned the accused about the misappropriation. Thereupon, the petitioners deposited certain amounts. Subsequently, an enquiry was ordered by the Divisional Co-operative Officer, and after conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer (P.W.12) came to the opinion that A.1 committed misappropriation of an amount of Rs.10,948/- whereas A.2 committed misappropriation of an amount of Rs.3,34,018/-. On the instructions of the District Co-operative Officer, P.W.1 lodged the complaint. Basing on the same, police registered case and during the course of investigation, police seized various documents, examined the witnesses and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 3. The case was taken on file as C.C. No.229 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle, and after furnishing copies of the documents, the trial court framed charges for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. against the accused. When the charges were read over and explained to them in telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P104. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. Upon considering the evidence on record, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 28.11.2001, found the revision petitioners/A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 409 and 420 I.P.C., accordingly convicted them and sentenced A.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, under each count, and sentenced A.2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, under each count. 6. On separate appeals filed by A.1 and A.2, the appellate Court, by the impugned common judgment, partly allowed the appeals confirming the conviction and sentence of accused of the offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C., while setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present revision cases are preferred by the accused. 7. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, none appears for the revision petitioners. Therefore, this court has no other option except to peruse the evidence on record. 8. The learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence is very clear that the petitioners have not accounted for the funds of the bank and misappropriated the same; that, in the enquiry report also, it came to light that the accused misappropriated certain amounts and that the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the petitioners would also clearly go to show that the offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. is made out; that, both the courts below, upon elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly found the revision petitioners guilty, none of the findings is shown to be illegal or improper or incorrect. Hence, she prays to dismiss the criminal revision cases. 9. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgments of the both the courts below are correct, legal and proper ? 10. The revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings of the courts below are perverse or contrary to law, normally this Court will not interfere with the same. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C., there must be entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation of the amount and that the accused must be a public servant or banker or merchant or agent. 11. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners were authorized to collect day collections from members and non-members of Repalle Co-operative Bank Limited, Repalle, and specific instructions were given to both the petitioners that they have to maintain the ledger and that day collections have to be entered into both the ledgers that were to be maintained by both the petitioners/accused. P.W.4 was given authorization to verify the daily deposits, cash books, which were with the customers of the bank. On verification, it came to light that there was a deficiency of cash balance in the ledger and therefore he questioned A.2, who admitted the same and deposited certain amounts. A.2 also stated to have executed Ex.P8-letter. P.W.4, who is the staff of the bank, deposed about the deficiency of cash balance, because he compared the transactions in the daily pass books with that of the bank ledgers. 12. P.Ws.3 to 6, who are the staff members, testified about the procedure to be followed by them in the bank and their powers to check the accounts and the registers. If they checked the accounts properly in regular intervals, the misappropriation would have been detected long back. But, on that ground, it cannot be said that the accused are entitled for acquittal. 13. The members, who used to pay daily deposits to the petitioners, did not support the case of prosecution. The other evidence available on record is the evidence of P.W.12, who is the officer appointed by the District Panchayat Officer to conduct the enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Upon conducting an enquiry, he gave a finding that A.1 committed misappropriation of an amount of Rs.10,948/- whereas A.2 committed misappropriation of an amount of Rs.3,34,018/-. His evidence is very clear about the modus operandi of the accused that A.1 and A.2 used to show the daily collections against individual depositors in the horizontal line where in the vertical line, they were showing some amounts. This short fall amount was remitted into the bank through challans. P.W.12 deposed about the clear cut difference between the horizontal posting and vertical total. P.W.12 also stated that he prepared numerical statements which show about remittances made to the bank by the accused and the amounts paid by the depositors. The Statement Ex.P96 is in respect of A.1 and Ex.P97 is in respect of A.2. They would clearly go to show the differences in between the amounts paid to the depositors by the bank and the amounts received by the bank from the accused. It is not the case of the accused that they never collected the amounts from the members and non-members of the society. Therefore, it amounts to admission of entrustment of certain cash from the depositors. There is evidence on record would clearly go to show that the petitioners failed to remit the amounts that have been received from the members and non-members, in toto into the bank. On this aspect, they have admitted the same in writing before the Secretary of the Bank as well as P.W.12. 14. It is not in dispute that after finding the misappropriation by the Auditors, A.1 remitted an amount of Rs.29,764/-. But, as per the Enquiry Officer’s report, A.1 misappropriated Rs.10,948/- only. The excess amount has been repaid to A.1 under Ex.P37-receipt. Coming to A.2, after enquiry, he remitted certain amounts into the bank, but as per the Enquiry Officer’s report, he committed misappropriation of Rs.3.00 lakhs and odd. From the evidence on record, it is clear that he only deposited Rs.60,000/- on one occasion and Rs.20,000/- on another occasion. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that A.1 remitted total amount of misappropriation, but A.2 remitted only a part of the misappropriated amount. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court as well as the appellate court rightly found the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. None of the finding is shown to be illegal or improper or incorrect or contrary to law. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 15. The Criminal Revision Cases are devoid merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. ---------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 09.10.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos. 1652 of 2003 and 1653 of 2003 Date: 9.10.2009 Between: Bolisetty Venkata Udaya Bhaskara Rao & another …Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU COMMON ORDER IN CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos. 1652 of 2003 and 1653 of 2003 09.10.2009