THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1893 of 2004 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment dated 27.10.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. 2. It is the case of prosecution that petitioner/A.1 is owner-cum-driver of lorry bearing no.AIK 5247. P.W.2 is the Managing Partner of M/s. Raghavendra Supply Office, Hyderabad. He was arranging lorries of third parties for transport on commission basis. Lorry of petitioner/A.1 was offered to transport whisky and brandy bottles of M/s. Ciris Cellars Private Limited of Hyderabad from Hyderabad to Vizianagaram, and on the instructions of P .W.2, P.W.1 took lorry of the petitioner to the said company and it was loaded with 550 cartons of whisky and brandy bottles, and brought to the office of P.W.2. Then, P.W.2 paid Rs.350/- as transport charges fixing the charges as Rs.4,000/- and handed over the lorry and the stock to the petitioner, who left office on 29.9.1997. In the normal course, the lorry had to reach Vizianagaram within about 3 days, but the petitioner’s lorry did not reach Vizianagaram. On 17.10.1997, at about 6.00 A.M., the petitioner intentionally drove the lorry into supply canal in between Ravulapalem and Rajahmundry near Mulasthanam village. When the lorry fell into the canal, the petitioner came out of the lorry and saw the persons gathered, and asked them to take away the bottles as they like and left the place. This fact was brought to the notice of P.Ws.7 and 8, and on the complaint lodged by P.W.8, police registered the case, visited the scene of offence, seized some brandy bottles, tarpaulin and other material from the lorry which was in the canal and intimated to P.Ws. 2, 3 and others. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and in pursuance of his statement, cash of Rs.90,000/- and some whisky and brandy bottles were seized from A.2 and A.3. During investigation, it came to light that the petitioner came to Vijayawada with the load of brandy and whisky bottles and sold some portion of the stock to A.2, A.3 and others, and that he also unloaded 130 cartons in his house and kept Rs.90,000/- in his which was realized by selling some bottles, and thereafter, intentionally drove the lorry into the canal and left the place. After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet for the offences under Sections 407, 424 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’) 3. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 26.08.2002 in C.C. No.36 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru, found the petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 407 and 424 I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 407 I.P.C., and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 424 I.P.C., while acquitting A.2 and A.3 of the charges levelled against them. Challenging the same, the petitioner/A.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2002 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, and the appellate court, vide impugned judgment, partly allowed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 407 I.P.C., while setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 424 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused. 4. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgments of the courts below are correct, legal and proper ? 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the lorry of the petitioner met with an accident, the brandy bottles were taken away by the persons of the locality and therefore necessary ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 407 I.P.C. are not established; that the arrest and recovery are falsified and not correct, and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that there was entrustment of property to the petitioner and the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated the property so as to cause wrongful loss to the owners, and that the courts below upon appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective, found the petitioner guilty, and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 7. Revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings of the courts below are illegal or improper or perverse, ordinarily, this court would not interfere with the same. Section 407 I.P.C. deals with criminal breach of trust by carrier. Under this Section, whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, is liable for punishment. The necessary ingredients to constitute ‘Criminal Breach of Trust’ as defined under Section 405 I.P.C. are as follows: “(a) A person is, in any manner entrusted with- (i) property, or (ii) dominion over property. (b) He dishonestly:- (i) misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or (ii) dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or any legal contract (express or implied) made by touching discharge of such trust willfully suffers any other person so to do or omit.” 8. In this case, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 would clearly go to show that the petitioner was entrusted with the property of 550 cartons of whisky and brandy bottles at Hyderabad to be delivered at Vizianagaram on 29.9.1997. In the normal course, to cover the said distance, it would take about three days. He has not reported to the owner who entrusted the bottles, or to the commission agent, for about 17 days. On 17th day, he made it appear that the lorry fell into a supply canal in between Ravulapalem and Rajahmundry. The petitioner has not explained as to what had happened for all these 17 days with regard to the property entrusted to him. There was no need for him to take such a long time for carrying the goods entrusted to him to be delivered at Vizianagaram. Therefore, entrustment of goods to the petitioner is proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the goods entrusted have not been delivered at the destination point by the petitioner, the only inference that can be drawn is that he misappropriated the property. In the absence of any explanation, the trial Court and the appellate court rightly found the petitioner guilty, and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the courts below. 9. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ----------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 30.07.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1893 of 2004 30.07.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1893 of 2004 Date: 30.07.2010 Between: Shaik Kaleel …Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Respondent