Criminal Revision Petition No. 1320 of 2007 · Kerala High Court

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R BY AMICUS CURIAE ADV. FARZA N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P.No.1320 of 2007 2 ORDER Ten quintals of rice entrusted with a Maveli store for distribution to various schools under the Government scheme for providing food to the students, was misappropriated. Exts.P4 and P5 are the two passbook entries by which ten quintals of rice were received under the signature of the accused, who was acting as the Manager-in-charge. But it was not duly entered in Ext.P3 stock register. The prosecution case is that it was taken away by the accused and misappropriated. The very fact that he had received the lot under Exts.P4 and P5 documents with his signature would sufficiently show his alleged role in the commission of offence. During the course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no dispute was raised regarding the signature affixed as that of him in Exts.P4 and P5. Necessarily, unless there is corresponding entry in Ext.P3 stock register, it can be presumed that the lot was taken away by the person Crl.R.P.No.1320 of 2007 3 with whom it was entrusted.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly submitted that there is no document to show that he was put in charge of the Manager of the Maveli store during the relevant time of commission of offence and no witness was examined in that behalf. It was not properly understood or addressed either by the trial court or by the first appellate court. But Exts.P4 and P5 are decisive wherein his signature is seen affixed on getting the lot of rice covered by Exts.P4 and P5. That itself would show that he was put in charge of the affairs at that time to receive the lot of 10 quintals of rice intended for distribution. It was not duly entered in Ext.P3 stock register. Necessarily, the accused should explain as to what happened to the lot received by him under Exts.P4 and P5, for which he did not mount on the box to give any evidence directly and nothing was brought out during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses to lend Crl.R.P.No.1320 of 2007 4 support to his defence. In fact, in order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 406 IPC, there should be entrustment. The entrustment of the job to receive the lot is well evident from Exts.P4 and P5 and it would discharge the initial burden lies on the prosecution. Necessarily, there is no much weight in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petition in that behalf. As far as the offence under Section 477A is concerned, there is falsification of accounts and as such, it will stand attracted. The concurrent judgment of conviction hence deserves no interference by this Court.

On coming into the sentence awarded, being a first time offender, a reformative approach can be adopted by reducing the substantive sentence to two months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC from the period of six months rigorous imprisonment imposed by the first appellate court and one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 477A IPC with a Crl.R.P.No.1320 of 2007 5 direction to run the substantive sentence concurrently. The petitioner is also entitled to set off of the period of detention already undergone. The Criminal Revision Petition will stand allowed accordingly. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/-