SINGARAMOORTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED No. 1, viz., Singaramoorthi, in C.C.No. 42 of 1979 on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi, has preferred this revision challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment made in Crl. App. No. 11 of 1980 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur Division at Thanjavur, dismissing the appeal but modifying the conviction into one under section 408, Indian Penal Code, instead of section 409, Indian Penal Code, as found by the trial Court, and also setting aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed by the trial Court, and in lieu of that, directing him to be released under section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on his entering into a bond for Rs. 500 with one surety for a like sum to receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

(2.) THE charge levelled against the revision petitioner (accused No. 1) reads that the accused No. 1 being the Secretary of the Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society, Serumangalam, who was arrayed as the second accused, was entrusted with the accounts of the said Society, and that he has isappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,954.61 on 29th May, 1973, by not bringing that amount into account of the day book of the Society. To substantiate the above charge, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and filed Exhibits P-1 to P-12. THE trial Court, fop the reasons assigned in its judgment, found both the accused guilty, and convicted and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, and also directed the sentence imposed on accused No. 1 (the revision petitioner) to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Z.C. No. 41 of 1979 on its file.

(3.) MR. R. Gandhi, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has only made a submission requesting this Court to make an observation that the order of the lower appellate Court releasing the revision petitioner under section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, does not render any automatic disqualification attached to the conviction itself. But, he has not advanced any argument regarding the validity and legality of the judgment of the lower appellate Court.