DYNIEL DSOUZA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 4/5/2010 passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote in C.C.Nos.147/2001 and 209/2006 and its confirmation by the Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District dtd. 30/6/2011 passed in Crl.A.Nos.18/2010 and 19/2010 and praying this Court to acquit both the revision petitioners.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that accused No.1 was working as a Sub-Treasury Officer from 30/9/1996 and accused No.2 was working as a Second Divisional Assistant from 26/8/1991. Both of them were having double lock system and respective keys were with them since they were having charge of the strong room. The valuables and stamp papers were kept in the strong room, which was provided with double lock system in the Treasury. Both the revision petitioners were kept under suspension on the charge of fraudulent payment of pension. After their suspension, the charge was handed over to the respective officials and on verification, it was found that there was shortage of non-judicial, judicial and revenue stamp papers to the tune of Rs.3,65,400.00. The officers who took the charge immediately informed the same to the higher authority. The Deputy Director also conducted the physical verification of the stamp papers kept in the strong room in the presence of the petitioners. The accused No.2 was absent from the office since 17/4/1998 and physical verification was done on 23/4/1998 and 24/4/1998 and there was a shortage of Rs.3,35,800.00 non-judicial stamp papers, Rs.1,600.00 judicial stamp papers and Rs.28,000.00 revenue stamp papers. In all there was a shortage of Rs.3,65,400.00 stamp papers. Hence, case was registered and matter was investigated and filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners herein. The accused No.1 was secured and he was on bail and when accused No.2 did not appear before the Court, split-up case was registered against him and separate case was numbered and before commencement of the trial he was also secured and hence though two cases were separately registered, common evidence was recorded since both the revision petitioners claimed trial and not pleaded guilty.

(3.) The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 and also got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 21. The Trial Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted both the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Sec. 408 of IPC and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000.00.