L CHANDRAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated April 11, 1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 1993. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and affirmed their conviction and sentence under Sections 409, 467 and 471, IPC as also under Section 5(1)(c) and (d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant in Criminal Appeal 204 of 1997 namely L. Chandraiah has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 409, I.P.C and Section 5(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 467, IPC. So far as the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1997 namely Y.V. Kamesham is concerned he has been sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 409 and Section 5(1)(c)and (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has also been found guilty of the offence under Section 467, IPC for which he has been sentenced to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment. The trial Court also imposed the sentence of fine against both.

(2.) Six persons were put up for trial before the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad in CC No. 7 of 1990. L. Chandraiah was A-1 before the trial Court while Y.V. Kamesham was A-2. The third accused namely G. Sambamurthy was also convicted and sentenced in the same manner as appellant Y.V. Kamesham, but he did not prefer any appeal before the High Court. Only the appellants in these two appeals preferred an appeal before the High Court which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.453 of 1993. It may here be noticed that the other three accused namely A-4, A-5 and A-6 were acquitted of the charges levelled against them by the trial Court and no appeal was preferred by the State against their acquittal. The appellants have assailed the judgment of the High Court before us in these appeals by special leave.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that A-1 was a Sub Post Master at Bellampally Sub Post Office from April, 1986 to May 8, 1987. He was succeeded by A2 as Sub Post Master who worked as such from May 8, 1987 to Nov. 16, 1987. At the relevant time A-3 worked as Postal Assistant in the same Sub-Post Office. A-4 was employed as a Postman in the said Post Office during the relevant period. A-5 who was earlier an employee of the Postal Department had resigned from his post in the year 1987. A-6 is a student and is related to A-3 and was staying with A-3 as a tenant at Bellampally.