M HUTCHAIAH Vs. STATE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction in C. C. 73/86 dated 21-9-1998. The allegations against the appellant before the Special Court were, a sum of Rs. 19,473/- collected on 19-11-1982 towards customs duty on three inwards foreign parcels under receipt Nos. 19022, 19023, and 19024 from one Verghese of Southern Electronics, Bangalore, was not accounted by the appellant to the daily account of Sub Post Office when he was working as Sub Post Master of Peenya Small Industries Post Office, Bangalore.

(2.) The learned trial Judge, on appraisal of the evidence brought on record in the form of PWs-1 to 11 and Exs. P1 to P20, ultimately convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 409, IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) According to the appellant, the Court below has committed gross error in not appreciating the evidence in the right perspective; by drawing wrong inferences, the Court has convicted the appellant which is nothing but miscarriage of justice. The Court ought not to have come to the conclusion that just because the parcel was delivered to the addressee after payment of customs duty, the appellant alone could have misappropriated the said amount. Except the oral evidence of PW3 and PW4, no other evidence in this regard came on record and therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the evidence of PW3 and PW4 and drawing adverse inference. Similarly, admissions of the appellant in 313 statement ought not to have been relied on by the Court and it explains bias while discharging duty as a Judge. Similarly, confession letters at Exs. P8 to P11 ought not to have been relied on. The trial Court, placing total reliance on these confession letters wherein remittance of certain amounts came to be made by the appellant, was totally wrong, and it failed to take into consideration non-application of mind of the sanctioning authority while according sanction to prosecute the appellant. With these averments, he has sought for setting aside the judgment of conviction.