KMALAIAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, in Tumkur Sessions Case No. 3 of 1955, convicting him of offences under Sections 467 and 409, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, under each count, and directing that the substantive sentences should run concurrently.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that the accused, who was a postman in Kunigal Post Office, was on 28-11-1949 entrusted with a money order for Rs. 20/-, which was received from Bangalore as unpaid to the payee, for payment to the remitter P. W. 9 Ramkrishna at Kunigal, that the accused forged the signature of Krishnaiah (also called Krishnappa) on whose behalf the money order was sent by P. W. 9 and misappropriated it and that he thereby committed offences under Sections 467 and 409, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, agreeing with the unanimous opinion of the Assessors, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. As against that decision, the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) The point that arises for consideration is whether the charges against the appellant have been made out. That a money order as per Ext. P-1 was sent by P. W. 9 Ramakrishna on behalf of P W. 8 Krishnaiah addressed to Venugopalakrishna Ananda Bhavan, Bangalore, and that the same was returned undelivered are proved by the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 8 and 9. The amount due under that money order had to be paid to the remitter at Kunigal. P. W. 8, the then Sub-Postmaster, has shown that the money order was received from Bangalore undelivered to the payee and that it was handed over or entrusted to the accused for payment to the remitter. His evidence is corroborated by the Register of Money Orders Ext. P-15 as per the entries Exts, 15(c) and 15(d). The accused has acknowledged having received the money order for payment to the remitter under Ext. P-15(d). Thus there can be no doubt that a money order sent from Kunigal to Bangalore was returned undelivered to the payee that the same had to be paid to the remitter and that the money order was entrusted to the accused for the payment of the amount to the remitter Ramakrishna. These facts are not disputed on the side of the appellant.