THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.248 OF 2009 ORDER The accused in C.C.No.91 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram was convicted for the oﬀence under Section 381 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months, which was conﬁrmed in an appeal viz., Crl.A.No.30 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Court of Sessions Judge, Anantapur, is the revision petitioner herein. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was working in the Head Post Oﬃce at Dhamavaram and keeping in conﬁdence with him, PW.1-Head Post Master and PW.6-Regular Treasurer used to handover the keys of the chest to the accused. PW.6 was on leave from 15.12.2003 to 17.12.2003 and PW.7 was placed in charge and after oﬃce hours on 13-12-2003 cash of Rs.24,66,650/- was kept in the chest and the accused came on duty as “night watchman” and he was asked to be careful since the huge amount of cash was available and thereafter the accused is said to have committed theft of cash and left the Post Oﬃce after informing PW.2 that he is going to his house and will come back. On 15-12-2003 PW.1 and other staff came to the oﬃce and on opening the chest, they found shortage of Rs.9,68,500/- and thereafter the accused was called and when questioned, he did not respond and thereafter left the place. On a complaint given by PW.1 to the police, a case was registered and PW.11 apprehended the accused on 22-12-2003 and accused gave voluntarily confessional statement and produced a sum of Rs.64,050/- and thereafter he led the panchadars- PWs.11 and 12 and police into his house and produced balance cash of Rs.8,95,000/- which was seized by the police. Therefore, the total cash was seized and the accused has committed theft of the same. The accused was prosecuted for an oﬀence under Sections 457 and 381 IPC and he pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and Mos.1 and 2. The trial court and the appellate Court have accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. Hence the revision petition. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- 1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused has committed the theft of cash from the Post Office? 2. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts below is legal and sustainable? POINTS:- There is no dispute about the fact that the accused is an employee and it is also not in dispute that he was attending to watchman duties. The closeness between accused and PWs.1 and 6 is also spoken by PWs.1 and 6 in their evidence and the conﬁdence reposed by them was also spoken by them. According to the evidence of PWs.1 and 6, that the accused was informed about the availability of huge cash as it has to be deposited in the Bank on the next day. The evidence of recovery of the entire amount is proved by the evidence of PWs.11 and 12 and also the Investigating Oﬃcer. The bundles contain the identity of the bank slips and accused could not give any explanation as to how he came into possession of such huge money. Added to that, his conduct clearly goes to show that he has absconded and he was apprehended only on 22.12.2003 and the property was seized. Added to that the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 also clearly goes to show that in or about the time when the oﬀence was committed, the conduct of the accused, in trying to go away from the scene and also answering questions in a confusing manner and behaved in a suspiciously manner, would clearly go to show that the accused is alone liable for the oﬀence. It is also diﬃcult to believe that the police could have planted such huge money if it was not recovered at the instance of the accused from his house. Though there may be some violations are said to be canvassed before the courts below about the seizure but they are not very much material and the accused was the watchman on the fateful day and he is responsible for the theft and loss of money. In fact, there is no other person who has committed the oﬀence except the accused himself in view of the recovery. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there are absolutely no irregularities committed by the courts below in convicting and sentencing the accused and in view of the involvement of the huge money and the accused being a public servant committed the theft of cash from the Post Oﬃce where he was discharging his duties, no reduction of sentence can be given. Therefore, there are no merits in the revision and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The lower court is directed to issue N.B.W for the apprehension of the accused. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 05-11-2011 TSNR