HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1196 OF 2004 Date: 15-07-2011 Between: G. Vasudeva Char. - - - Petitioner/ A-1. Versus The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1196 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- Accused No.1 against judgment, dated 07-07-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2001 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Cuddapah. 2. The Accused No.1 was prosecuted in Calender Case No.81 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 465 of I.P.C. on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Cuddapah, who after the trial of the case convicted the Accused No.1 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for nine months for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer Simple Imprisonment for nine months for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer Simple Imprisonment for nine months for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC, whereas, against the said conviction and sentences, the accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2001 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Cuddapah, who allowed the Criminal Appeal in part setting aside the conviction and sentence passed, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC and confirming the conviction and sentences imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 465 IPC and awarding compensation of Rs.6,64,000/- under Section 357 Cr.P.C. in respect of the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC vide judgment, dated 07-07- 2004 and challenging the same Accused No.1 has preferred this Revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Accused No.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent – State. 4. The prosecution version in brief is as follows : A-1 was the Senior Assistant and A-3 was the Assistant Director in the office of Assistant Director of Horticulture Department, Cuddapah and A-2 was their Associate and A-3 got power to issue cheques and draw and disburse amounts in his position and they involved in issuing several cheques leaving ample space to add digits and words and adding digits and words thereby substantially changing the corresponding amounts and withdrawing amounts to a tune of Rs.12,17,597-00 as against the actual amounts to a tune of Rs.1,99,443.95 from various banks from January, 1997 to April, 1997. The Deputy Director of Horticulture, Andhra Pradesh (PW.1) inspected the accounts and detected the fraud and suspected that A-1 and A-2 were responsible for the crime. On his report, the S.I. of Police I Town P.S. registered it in Crime No.60 of 1997 and during the course of investigation the S.I. of Police collected the original cheques, cheque books containing counter foils, cash books and registers and collected and sent specimen hand writings of A-1 and A-2 to Handwriting expert (PW.15) for comparison, whereas, PW.15 examined them and opined that the handwritings in the counter foils, cash books and cheque books were made by one and the same person. Further, A.R. Sukumara, Commissioner of Horticulture (PW.16) sent a letter to the station House Officer, I Town P.S. to implead A-3 also as an accused in the case on the basis of material available. Subsequently, charge sheet was laid against A-1 to A-3 after the completion of the investigation of the case. 5. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for A-1 has not pressed the main prayer and pleaded that the Accused No.1 lost his job because of his involvement in the case and further the main culprit in the case is A-3 and hence the sentence imposed against A-1 may be reduced. 6. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court gave concurrent findings so far as the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 465 I.P.C. are concerned, this Court is of the view that the merits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 7. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 1997 and for all these years Accused No.1 must have suffered humiliation by attending various Courts in connection with this case and loosing valuable part of his life and incurring lot of expenditure. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some mercy towards A-1 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against A-1 by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 465 I.P.C. and confirmed by the appellate Court are again confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is modified and reduced to four months for each offence punishable under sections 409 and 465 I.P.C. Both the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently. The period of detention, if any, undergone by A-1 shall be given as set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. With the above noted modifications, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 15h July, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 355 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1196 OF 2004 July, 15, 2011 DSH