IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 632 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.3/1998 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, N. PARAVUR CC.494/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- ABRAHAM, AGED 38, S/O. VARKEY, KARIKUDY HOUSE, KRARIYELI KARA, KOMBANAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT AND COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, KURUPPAMPADY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. -------------------------------------- CRL.R.P. 632 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.494/1995 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, and appellant in Crl.A.3/1998 of Addl. Sessions Court, N. Parur. The revision petitioner challenges his conviction under secs.409 and 465 of IPC and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under sec.409 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under sec.465 of IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner has been confirmed by the lower appellate court. The accused has challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision petition. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the accused who was the delivery agent of Paniyely Branch Post Office between 23.3.1993 and 27.3.1993 has misappropriated a sum of Rs.300/- sent as money order to PW.2 by forging his signature CRL.R.P. 632 of 2001 2 and misappropriated a registered cover came in the address of PW.3 and committed breach of trust in respect of those properties and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 409 and 465 IPC. 3. On the side of the prosecution Pws.1 to 12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. When questioned under sec.313 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner pleaded innocence. No defence evidence was adduced. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found him guilty of the offence punishable under secs.409 and 465 of IPC and convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid. On appeal by the accused, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now in this revision the revision petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence. 4. The main point which arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal can be sustained. 5. Pws.1 to 12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked on the side of the prosecution before the lower court. CRL.R.P. 632 of 2001 3 PW.1 is the then Sub Divisional Inspector of Perumbavoor Post Office during May 1993 who filed the complaint Ext.P1 against the accused. PW.2 is conducting a tea shop at Paniyely. He is the person who made the complaint before the Post Office stating that a money order for Rs.300/- came in his name was not received by him. P.W.3 is also a resident nearby who filed a complaint before the Paniyeli Post Office regarding non-receipt of a registered post sent by her husband. PW.4 is the then post mistress of Paniyely post office during 1993. She would say that the accused was working there as postman during the relevant year. It was PW.4 who handed over the registered letter and money order in question to the accused for the purpose of delivery. On inspection PW.4 found that the accused has made false entries in Ext.P5, the receipt book. Pw.5 is only a witness to the mahazar Ext.P6. PW.6 is the then Sub Divisional Inspector of Post office, Kodungalloor. He initiated proceedings against the accused. On his direction the accused produced registered cover Ext.P4 which was handed over to PW.3. PW.7 is the Assistant Postal Superintendent, Kollam. PW.8 is the Postal CRL.R.P. 632 of 2001 4 Inspector of Sub Divisional Office, Perumbavoor. PW.9 is an attestor to Ext.P9 recovery mahazar. PW.10 is the then S.I. of Kuruppumpady Police Station who registered the FIR Ext.P10 and conducted the investigation. PW.11, the then S.I. of Kuruppumpady Police Station, verified the investigation of PW.10 and conducted further investigation. PW.12, the then S.I. of Police, Kuruppumpady Police Station, conducted further investigation in the case and laid the charge before the trial court. 6. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court and the judgment of the trial court and that of the lower appellate court. In my view the trial court as well as the appellate court are justified in accepting the evidence of the prosecution and coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges levelled against the revision petitioner. I find no reason to come to a different conclusion. Further, the conviction of the revision petitioner by the courts below is not seriously challenged in this revision petition. Therefore I confirm the conviction of the CRL.R.P. 632 of 2001 5 revision petitioner under secs.409 and 465 of IPC. 7. As regards the sentence, the amount involved is only Rs.300/- and the matter relates to the year 1993 i.e. about 15 years back. The counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is also not doing well and his wife has become a mental patient. Taking into consideration all these facts, I feel that a fine of Rs.5000/- under each count would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the Crl.R.P. is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under secs.409 and 465 of IPC is confirmed. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under sec.409 of IPC and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under sec.465 of IPC. One month time is granted for payment of fine. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-