VAIDYANATHA AYYER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C. 77 of 1959 on the file of the District Magistrate of Palghat who had been convicted under S.409 I.P.C., and whose appeal before the Sessions Judge, Palghat had been dismissed has filed this revision petition. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year by the District Magistrate, but in appeal the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. On admission of the revision petition, notice has been issued to the accused to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced and that is how it has come up before this Bench for hearing.

(2.) It is not disputed by the petitioner that monies were entrusted to him. On

(3.) Pw. 3, the Deputy Panchayat Officer had audited the accounts of the Panchayat up to March 1957 on 3-8-1957. His next visit was on 18-1-1958. On that day the cash book showed a balance of Rs. 2365.28 besides the credit balances in the Sub-Treasury and Post Office. This cash balance ought to have been in the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner was not able to produce the cash balance when demanded. It was admitted by him that he had no cash with him on that day. This fact is seen recorded by Pw. 3 in Ext. P2 cash book. The relevant entry is Ext. P2 (a). The petitioner also gave a statement Ext. P 13 that he would remit the amount by 4-2-1958. Pw. 3 again inspected the office on 3-4-1958. The petitioner had not by then remitted any amount and he again gave a statement Ext. P14 asking for more time for payment of the amount. These statements are admissible in evidence. It cannot, therefore, be contended that there was no conversion of the amount for the accuseds own use. The courts below have exhaustively discussed the evidence in the case and rightly found that the prosecution has conclusively proved entrustment and misappropriation. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore has rightly not chosen to seriously argue this aspect of the case.