IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 173 of 2001(C) -------------------------------------- CRA.4/1998 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.113/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ALIAS PODIYAN, S/O.JOSEPH, CHERUVALLIKATTIL VEEDU, PUNNAPRA PANCHAYAT WARD NO.u, PARAVOOR BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SRI.P.G.THAMPI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 173 of 2001(C) ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.739 OF 2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.173 OF 2001 DISMISSED 07.10.2008 SD/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL. R. P. No. 173 of 2001 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 O R D E R It is alleged that revision petitioner was working as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (hereinafter referred as 'the delivery agent') of Vadaikal Post Office and while so during the period from 26/10/1991 to 14/12/1991 he forged documents to make it appear that money orders sent to PWs 2 to 4 were received by PWs 2 to 4, and misappropriated the amount covered by those money orders on the strength of such forged documents. PW15 conducted investigation and filed final report. Revision petitioner faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465 and 471 of the Penal Code, was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various periods and payment of fine. Revision petitioner preferred appeal, but learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the same. Hence this revision. 2. Revision petitioner and counsel remained absent at the time of hearing. There is no representation. I heard public prosecutor. CRL. R.P.No. 173 /2001 2 3. Case is that the son or husband of PWs 2 to 4 used to send money to PWs 2 to 4 by money orders, but the money orders sent during the period from 26/10/1991 to 14/12/1991 did not reach PWs 2 to 4 and instead, revision petitioner who was the delivery agent of that post office during said period forged signatures of PWs 2 to 4 and misappropriated the said amounts. PW1 is the Postal Complaint Inspector who on getting complaints of PWs 2 to 4 enquired into the matter, found the allegations to be correct and lodged Exhibit P1, complaint to the police as per directions of the superior authority. He claimed that revision petitioner was working as the delivery agent in Vadaikal Post Office during relevant time. He also identified the signature of revision petitioner in the relevant document. PW2 is wife of PW6. They claimed that PW6 used to send money to PW2 by money order, Exhibit P4 is the money order and Exhibit P11 is the voucher allegedly signed by PW2 for receipt of amount. PWs 2 and 6 claimed that signatures in Exhibit P4 and P11 are not that of PW2. It is also the version of PW2 that revision petitioner was working as postman of CRL. R.P.No. 173 /2001 3 Vadaikal Post Office during the relevant time and used to give money orders to her. PW8 is the sister of PW2 and said to be the witness in Exhibit P4 for PW2 allegedly receiving the amount. PW8 claimed that she has not signed Exhibit P4. 4. PW3 is the mother of PW7. Evidence of PWs 3 and 7 is that PW7 used to send money to PW3 by money orders but the relevant money order send by PW7 did not reach PW3 and she has not signed the voucher for alleged receipt of money. Exhibit P12 is the complaint given by her. PW4 is also another recipient of money order as per records but denied that he signed Exhibit P3 for delivery of money. PW5 was the Post Mistress of the post office during the relevant time, she narrated the procedure for disbursement of money received as per money orders. As per her version, postman will collect the money as well as the relevant money orders from her and sign the relevant register. On the evening the relevant vouchers will be given to her by the postman to evidence that the amount was given to the payee concerned. Exhibit P5 series and P6(a) are signed by the revision petitioner when he collected money from her. According to PW5 CRL. R.P.No. 173 /2001 4 revision petitioner submitted Exhibits P7 to P9 series to her as if money sent to PWs 2 to 4 were delivered to them. She thought that revision petitioner had actually paid the amounts to PWs 2 to 4. 5. Contention raised in the revision petition is that there was inordinate delay in lodging complaint against revision petitioner and that evidence let in by prosecution is not reliable. 6. There is sufficient evidence to show that during the relevant time revision petitioner was working as the delivery agent and used to disburse the money sent by customers by money orders, even in the case of PWs 2 to 4 but the money orders (Exhibit P2 to P4) never reached PWs 2 to 4 . PWs 2 to 4 have given evidence that they have not signed the said vouchers. Signatures in the relevant vouchers are identified by PW1 as belonging to revision petitioner. Moreover, the evidence of PW5 shows that the respective amount along with relevant money orders were entrusted by her to the revision petitioner in which case, he had to account for that. Thus there is sufficient evidence to show that revision petitioner in his capacity as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent was entrusted with the money orders and money for CRL. R.P.No. 173 /2001 5 payment to PWs 2 to 4, but, he misappropriated the said amount by forging signatures of PWs 2 to 4 and making it appear that amount were delivered to PWs 2 to 4. There is little reason to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the courts below. 7. Considering the nature of offence committed by revision petitioner misusing his position as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent which affected even the credibility of the Postal Department, I am satisfied that sentence awarded to revision petitioner is reasonable and required no interference. Revision petition is therefore dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm