SHANMUGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the petitioner/1st accused against the Judgment dated 2-9-1992 made in C.A. No. 15 of 1990 on the file of Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner concerned by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Pattukottai in C.C. No. 398 of 1985, dated 29-12-1989.

(2.) Originally the Calendar Case No. 398 of 1985 was taken on file against two accused. The revision petitioner was the 1st accused. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/1st accused was the President of Co-operative Milk Society, Uloor village, Pudukottai from 1-6-1978, in which Society, 2nd accused was serving as Cashier. During the period from 1-1-1981 to 30-10-1984, the amount, as per the accounts, available in theSociety, was Rs. 34,207-13, but the available amount shown by the accused was only Rs. 191-50 and since there was no proper explanation as to the account for the said amount charge sheet was filed alleging that the revision petitioner/1st accused has misappropriated Rs. 34,015/63 and 2nd accused has abetted the offence, thereby punishable under Sections 409 and 409, r/w 109, I.P.C. The trial Court in C.C. No. 398 of 1985, after appraisal of the entire evidence and documents found the petitioner/1st accused guilty under S. 409 I.P.C., and the 2nd accused under Section 408, I.P.C. The petitioner/1st accused was sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 2 months. Against the Judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 15 of 1990 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in which learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, but however, observed that the petitioner need not be sent to prison, as he is entitled to the benefits of G.O. Nos. 781 of 1990 and 279 of 1992, by which one year period of sentence has been remitted. Without satisfying with that Judgment made in the criminal appeal, the petitioner/1st accused has come before this Court by way of revision.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate.