HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.22 OF 2005 Date: 12.03.2010 Between: Minnikanti Rama Rao ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad. ……Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.22 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is the sole accused. He was working as Senior Territory Service Representative in M/s. Blue Dart Express Limited at Guntur. It is alleged that he misappropriated monies of the company to the tune of more than Rs.2,00,000/-. After trial, the trial court i.e., V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur convicted the accused for offences under Sections 408, 477-A and 420 IPC and imposed sentences. On appeal by the accused, the lower appellate court i.e., XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur confirmed conviction of the accused for offence under Section 408 IPC and confirmed sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.200/- for the said offence; and allowed the appeal in so far as convictions and sentences relating to offences under Sections 477-A and 420 IPC. In this Revision Case, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that having found the accused not guilty of offences under Sections 477- A and 420 IPC, the lower appellate court should have acquitted the accused for offence under Section 408 IPC also as a consequence thereof. Simply because the accused was acquitted for charges under Sections 477-A and 420 IPC, it would not follow that the accused is liable to be acquitted for charge under Section 408 IPC also. It all depends upon evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to offence under Section 408 IPC. The lower appellate court mainly based its conclusion on Exs.P-2 and P-3 letters given by the accused to P.Ws.2 and 1 respectively admitting his liability for the embezzled amount of more than Rs.2,00,000/-. No doubt, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are superiors to the accused in the same company. When they enquired the accused about the misappropriated amount, the accused gave Exs.P-2 as well as P-3 to them on different dates. The lower appellate court found that Exs.P-2 and P-3 confessional letters given by the accused to P.Ws. 2 and 1 respectively are voluntary. The lower appellate court also noticed that in cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 nothing could be elicited against voluntary nature of Ex.P-2 and P-3 letters. The accused could not make out that Exs.P-2 and P-3 confessional letters are in any way vitiated by coercion or undue influence etc. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that except the alleged confessional letters Exs.P-2 and P-3, the prosecution did not let in by positive evidence that the accused misappropriated the alleged amounts. Apart from the confessional letters, the lower appellate court noticed that the amount paid by M/s. Bommidala Exports Limited to M/s. Blue Dart Express Company were not credited in Canara Bank account of M/s. Blue Dart company. The lower appellate court in the circumstances rightly inferred that the accused misappropriated amounts received by him from M/s. Bommidala Exports Limited. With regard to payments made by M/s. Bommidala Exports Limited, the prosecution examined Accounts Manager of M/s. Bommidala Exports Limited (P.W.7) who produced Exs.P-120 to P-133 receipts issued by the accused. The amounts covered by Exs.P-120 to P-133 were not credited in bank account of M/s. Blue Dart Company in Canara Bank. Thus, from the material on record, I am satisfied that the lower appellate court had sufficient material to find the accused guilty of the charge under Section 408 IPC. I do not find any valid and legal reasons to come to a different conclusion in this Revision Case. In the result, the Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:12.03.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL RC NO.22 OF 2005 Date:12.03.2010. Gk.