STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BASAPPA S O NAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this Appeal, the State of Karnataka has assailed the adequacy of sentence awarded to the respondent-accused who faced his trial in CC No. 57/89 in the Court of the I Addl. JMFC, Bagalkot for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477-A, IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the accused who was the Branch Post Master of Nainegali Branch Post Office between the period 27-6-1979 to 22-11-1984 was inter alia in charge of the SB Accounts maintained by the Branch. The allegation against him was that on the scrutiny of the records, it was disclosed that an amount of Rs. 3,400/- had not been accounted for in the records of the Post Office. There is an elaborate procedure prescribed for the maintenance of the different records and the charge was that the entries were incorrect and that consequently, the offence under Sec. 477-A, IPC is also disclosed. Another relevant fact is that the accused more than fully reimbursed the entire amount that has found to be short and we refer to this particular aspect because it is of some relevance.

(3.) AS inevitably happens, the trial dragged on right up to 11-2-1994 when it was finally concluded and the trial Court convicted the accused for both the offences with which he stood charged. For the offence punishable under Section 409, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo SI till the raising of the Court and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default SI for 2 months. The accused was also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 477-A, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default SI for 2 months. It is equally relevant for us to record that the accused did not appeal against the conviction and sentences awarded to him and we refer to this aspect of the case because we will have to say something about it. The State of Karnataka, however has preferred the present Appeal on the ground that admittedly the accused was working as a public servant and that he stands convicted for two serious offences both of which invite heavy punishment and that consequently, the imposition of such a lenient sentence is incorrect and that therefore, the case qualifies for an enhancement of sentence.