V V SUBBA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Revision Petitions are filed by accused I and 2 against their conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeals Nos. 83 and 84 of 1954 on the file of the Court of Session, West Godavari.

(2.) The facts are simple and may be stated. The 1st accused was a Record Keeper in the D1strict Munsif's Court, Tanuku. The 2nd accused was a defendant in O.S. No. 447 of 1952 on the file of the D1strict Munsif's Court, Tanuku. That suit was filed against him by his parents-in-law to recover possession of a room in a house and for other incidental reliefs. Six witnesses were examined for the plaintiff in that suit and the 2nd accused examined himself as a witness on his side. The suit was decreed and the records were all consigned fo" the Record Room, which was in charge of the first accused. The 2nd accused preferred an appeal against the decree of the D1strict Munsif and pending that appeal on 3rd September, 1953, he applied for copies of the depositions in that suit. But as he did not deposit the stamps called for, the application was struck off on I5th September, 1953. On 16th October, 1953, the 1st accused gave the depositions to the and accused. The 2nd accused got private copies of the depositions typed. He not only did not return the depositions but subsequently destroyed them. It may be mentioned that the records were consigned to the D1strict Court on 28th November, 1953, but the records other than the depositions were sent without disclosing the. fact that the seven depositions were missing. When the records were returned back to the D1strict Munsif for supplying the missing depositions, the D1strict Munsif discovered that fact. On these facts the following charges were framed against the two accused. Against the 1st Accused :

(3.) The Sub-Divisional Mag1strate, Kovvur, convicted the 1st accused under section 409, Indian Penal Code and the 2nd accused for abetment of that offence. He also convicted the and accused under section 411, Indian Penal Code, for having retained stolen property and also under section 426 for mischief for having intentionally caused the loss of the depositions. He sentenced the 1st accused to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 100. The 2nd accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 114 read with section 409, Indian Penal Code, and a fine of Rs. 200, to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 411, Indian Penal Code, and to three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 426, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run consecutively On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions of the two accused under sections 409 and 411, Indian Penal Code, but set aside the conviction and sentence of the 2nd accused under section 426, Indian Penal Code. But in regard to the sentence against the 2nd accused, he confirmed the conviction under section 411, Indian Penal Code, but reduced the sentence under section 409, Indian Penal Code, to six months. The result is that the 1st accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and the and accused to nine months. In addition, they were also awarded a sentence of fine.