THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1536 OF 2002 O R D E R: This criminal revision case filed under Section 397 & 401 Cr.P.C., 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 10.10.2002 in Crl.Appeal No.128 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-II) Khammam, whereunder and whereby the conviction of the petitioner of the offence under Section 406 I.P.C., and sentence of Simple Imprisonment for six months imposed in judgment dt.10.12.1999 in C.C.No.30 of 1997, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, were confirmed. 2) Originally the police filed charge sheet against A-1 & A-2. The present petitioner is A-2 and A-1 is her husband. A-1 died during the pendency of the C.C. and hence, the case against A-1 was abated. 3) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present criminal revision case may be stated as follows: The husband of A-2 started Chifdund business in the year 1982 and in the year 1990 they started three groups of chits for Rs.1500/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.6,000/- respectively. PWs.1 to 13 and others joined different groups of chitfund transactions. After collecting huge amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from various members, the accused stopped the chitfund business and in spite of repeated demands made by the members of different groups, the accused failed to pay the said amount. On a complaint lodged by PW-1, the police registered a case against the accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 56 of the Andhra Pradesh Chitfunds Act. 4) When the charges are read over and explained to the petitioner/A-2, for the offence punishable under Sections 406 & 420 I.P.C., and Section 56 of the Andhra Pradesh Chitfunds Act, she pleaded not guilty. 5) To substantiate the charges leveled against the accused the prosecution PWs.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-15. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6) The trial court after accepting the evidence of PWs.1 to 13, came to the conclusion that the members of different groups paid certain amounts to the petitioner/A2 and he dishonestly misappropriated the amounts and committed criminal breach of trust and thereby convicted the petitioner of the offence under Section 406 I.P.C., and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision petition is filed. 7) The point that arises for determination is whether the judgments of both the courts below are proper and correct. 8) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence on record to show that P Ws.1 to 13 and PW-15 paid certain amounts to the petitioner; that A-2 who is the wife of A-1 has nothing to do with the chitfund business and that convicting the petitioner/A-2 for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C., is barred by limitation and hence, he prays to set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below. 9) On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that concurrent findings of the courts below need not be interfered with and the evidence of PWs.1 to 13 would clearly go to show that they have paid monthly subscriptions to the petitioner and even after completion of the chit transaction, the petitioner/A-2 has not repaid the amounts and therefore, she committed criminal breach of trust and that there is no limitation for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 406 and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgments of the courts below. 10) There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are truncated one. Unless the findings are not based upon the evidence or in-admissible evidence was taken into consideration or legally admissible evidence was discarded or perverse findings were given or mis-carriage of justice was caused, the revisional powers shall not be exercised. So, unless the judgment of both the courts below are perverse, illegal or incorrect, normally, this court cannot sit over as in an appeal against the order of conviction or acquittal to re appreciate the evidence. 11) For taking cognizance of an offence under Section 406 I.P.C., necessary ingredients as mentioned in Section 405 I.P.C., are necessary, which states that whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use of that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. The evidence of PWs.1 to 13 would clearly go to show that they joined in the chit transaction of the accused and the said fact was not seriously denied or disputed by the accused. It is also clear from their evidence that even after the chit transaction is over, the accused did not refund the amounts to them. PW-14 who is the Sub-Registrar of Chits, did not speak anything against the petitioner/A-2. During the course of investigation, police obtained the admitted signatures of A-1 & A-2 and also received the disputed and standard documents containing the signatures and writings of both the parties and gave his opinion that Ex.P-1 is the passbook, which was given by the accused to PW.7. When the admitted signatures were compared by PW-18 the Handwriting Expert, with that of the disputed signatures, opined that the standard signatures are tallying with the specimen signatures written by A-2. Therefore, the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with the expert opinion would clearly go to show that A-2 collected huge amounts from several persons of various groups of chit transaction and made them to believe that after the end of the chit transaction, the amounts would be returned to them, but the same was not done. Therefore, it can be inferred that the petitioner/A-2 mis- appropriated certain amounts and the same has been established. Hence, both the courts below rightly found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. 12) With regard to the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the offence under Section 406 I.P.C., is punishable upto 3 years, taking cognizance of an offence against the accused even after a lapse of three years is un- sustainable, this court is of the view that no doubt, for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C., the limitation for taking cognizance of an offence is three years from the date of offence or from the date of knowledge. This contention can be accepted, if the charge leveled against the petitioner/A-2 is only for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. Under Section 420 I.P.C., whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. There is no limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P. In a case where the accused is charged with offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years and also the offences punishable with imprisonment less than three years, it is well settled that for the purpose of taking cognizance of an offence, the maximum punishment, which is provided for one of the offences has to be taken into consideration. In view of the fact that cognizance of an offence was taken under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., the question of limitation does not arise and hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 406 is barred by limitation, cannot be accepted. In respect of a major punishment, both the courts below gave concurrent findings with regard to the entrustment and conversion of money. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgments of both the courts below. 13) The criminal revision case is dismissed. ____________ K.C.BHANU J., Dt.03.07.2009 tjs