(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.33 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore and he was convicted for the offences under Section 409 and 477-A IPC, but he was not sentenced instead he was released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Aggrieved by the conviction, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition.
(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: Totally there are two accused in this case. The first accused was the Manager of the "Salisbury Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Limited" at Gudalur and the second accused/petitioner was the cashier. P.W.1, the Special Officer went to the factory on 14.12.2001 and checked the accounts. At that time, in the cash chitta, the balance was shown as Rs.5,69,364.57, but the actual cash available with the cashier of the second accused was only Rs.5,26,143/-. There was a shortage of Rs.43,221.57. The said amount was misappropriated by the second accused. Further, the first accused having withdrawn a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the Gudalur Bank through cheque had deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and made entry in the chitta book only for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and had misappropriated the remaining sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The trial Court after analysing the evidence convicted both the accused. While convicting the second accused, the trial court observed out of shortage of Rs.43,221.57, a sum of Rs.20,000/- had been given to one Sheik as advance for the purchase of tea and the remaining amount of Rs.23,221.57 was misappropriated by the second accused.
(3.) Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was a delay of two and half years in giving complaint to the police by P.W.1. The complaint was given only after the departmental enquiry was over and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the entire amount misappropriated was repaid with interest by the first accused who was dismissed from service. The amount of Rs.23,221.57 was handed over by the petitioner to the first accused for miscellaneous expenses and the same was repaid by the accused. The explanation given by the petitioner was accepted by the departmental enquiry and he was not dismissed from service, but the trial court did not accept the explanation of the accused and erred in convicting the accused.