IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE THIRTYETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 374 of 2005 Between: Rayi Bushanam … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3 7 4 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Amalapuram, East Godavari district, in Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 2002, dated 01-2-2005, confirming the conviction of the accused and the substantive sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for three years was reduced to one year and as far as the fine and default sentence imposed by the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, in CC.No.83 of 2000, dated 03-6-2002 are confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : A-1 worked as Village Administrative Officer of Magam village from 1987 to 1992 and he had collected an amount of Rs.47,680-95 paise as land revenue from the ryots of the said village and misappropriated the Government money, and therefore, he is charged for the offence punishable under section 409 IPC. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation and pleaded not guilty. Charge under section 409 read with section 34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-19 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was marked. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused denied the same. 6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offences under section 409 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced him to suffer three years Rigorous Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months and pre-trial detention is set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. 7. On appeal, the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate was confirmed and the substantive sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for three years was reduced to one year and as far as the fine and default sentence imposed by the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, in CC.No.83 of 2000, dated 03-6-2002 are confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. The point for determination is whether the judgment of both the courts below are true, correct and proper ? 9. The crime was registered in the year 1999 for the offence committed during the period 1987 to 1992 when the petitioner worked as Village Administrative Officer of Magam village. The trial court convicted the accused under section 409 IPC and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has confined his arguments only in connection with the sentence and submitted that being the offence pertaining to the year 1987 and the case was registered in the year 1999 and the amount involved is Rs. 47,680-95 paise and the same was already paid by the petitioner herein. He further submitted that he collected the land revenue from the ryots but failed to deposit the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer. 11. Considering the fact that the offence is pertaining to the year 1999 i.e., after a lapse of one decade, the petitioner has been removed from service and he is suffering untold hardship to eke out his livelihood and to maintain his family at a subsistence level. 12. Considering the same, the conviction recorded by both the courts below is confirmed and sentence is modified to the period already undergone and the petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- apart from the fine already paid, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 30-09-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 374 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 28 Date: 30-09-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L