HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1632 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused, R. Narsa Goud, assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2002 dated 20-09-2004 passed by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, in C.C.No.102 of 2001 dated 23-07-2002 for the offence under Section 409 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: The accused, while working as Branch Post Master, Talamadla Branch Post Office, received deposits of Rs.5,500/- from one Emba Srinivas – PW.2 of Talamadla village towards deposits of recurring deposit account at the rate of Rs.500/- on 21st July, 28th August, 29th September, 28th October, 28th November, 30th December, 1997 and 29th January, 28th February, 31st March, 30th April and 30th May, 1998. Accused made deposit entries in the passbooks of PW.2, impressed with the date stamp and signed, but he did not make entries in the Branch Office regarding deposit Journal on the respective dates and did not account for that amount. Thus, accused misappropriate the above amount. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.28 of 2001 was registered by the police concerned, investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 409 & 420 IPC. 3. For the charges framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 409 & 420 IPC, he pleaded not guilty. 4. To substantiate its case, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. On behalf of the accused, no evidence was adduced. 5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the incriminating material against him in the evidence of prosecution. 6. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 409 IPC and accordingly convicted him for the same and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Challenging the same, accused preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved of the same, this revision is filed by the accused. 7. Heard Sri V. Jithender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the accused, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 8. Evidence of PW.1, who is successor to PW.3, is that accused accepted the deposits from PW-2, the victim, but did not deposit the same in to his account. Evidence of PW.3, Inspector of Post Office, Kama Reddy during the relevant time, is that during the course of inspection of Talamadla Post Office, he came across misappropriation caused by the accused. Exs.P-1 to P-5 are the passbooks concerning recurring deposit accounts of PW.2 under which he made payments to the accused. PW.2 has also spoken about the misappropriation committed by the accused. 9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution does not prove its case and that the learned Magistrate has erroneously convicted the accused and the same is wrongly confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision ? 11. There is no dispute about the accused working as Post Master at Talamadla Branch Post Office. Evidence of PW.2 shows that he has paid the amounts to the accused on respective dates for being deposited the same in to recurring post office accounts and the documents Exs.P-1 to P-5, passbooks, disclose about the relevant entries being made in the passbooks and the other record Exs.P-7 and P-8 disclose that the accused has not made corresponding entries in the said books. 12. Thus, the case depends on oral as well as documentary evidence and both the Courts below have concurrently found the accused guilty and at this stage of revision, no inconsistencies in the prosecution are brought to my notice to say that there is any miscarriage of justice or infirmity in appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below warranting interference of this Court. In these circumstances, I see no merits and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 13. However, as the amount misappropriated by the accused was only Rs.5,500/- and he has paid for the same by losing his employment and the offence has taken place in 1997 and he was in jail for 20 days or about a month or more during the course of investigation as well as after confirmation of the judgment of the trial Court by the lower appellate Court, his sentence of imprisonment can be reduced. Accordingly, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year is reduced to one month confirming the fine imposed by the Courts below with default sentence. The sentence of imprisonment, if any, undergone by the accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J July 1, 2010. PV