V V SUBBA RAO Vs. STATE
LAWS(APH)-1955-2-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 04,1955

V.V.SUBBA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VULLAPPA V. BHEEMA RAO [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIRA SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]


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 :
"That you in the month of October, 1953, at Tanuku being a public servant to wit the record keeper and in such capacity entrusted with the entire suit record in O.S. No. 447 of 1952 on the file of the D1strict Munsif, Tanuku, committed criminal breach of trust with respect to all the depositions in the said record and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 409, Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance."
Against the 2nd Accused :
"First: That you in the month of October, 1953, at Tanuku was present when A-1 being a public servant to wit the record keeper in the Court of the D1strict Munsif, Tanuku, who was entrusted with the entire suit records in O.S. No. 447 of 1952 in his capacity as record keeper of the said Court committed criminal breach of trust in respect of all the depositions in the said suit record in consequence of your abetment and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 409 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Secondly : That you in the month of October, 1953, at Tanuku dishonestly received and retained stolen property, viz., all the deposition in O.S. No. 447 of 1952 on the file of the D1strict Munsif's Court, Tanuku, belonging to the said Court knowing the same to be stolen property to wit the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust was committed in consequence of your abetment and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Thirdly : That you in the month of October, 1953, and subsequently at Attili secreted or destroyed the original depositions of P.Ws. 1 to 6 and D.W. 1 in O.S. No. 447 of 1952 on the file of the D1strict Munsif's Court, Tanuku, with the intention of preventing the same from being used as evidence in the appellate Court in considering the case and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 204 of the Indian Penal Code or That you or about the month of October, 1953, or subsequently committed mischief in respect of all the depositions in O.S. No. 447 on the file of the D1strict Munsif's Court, Tanuku, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 426 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance."

(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.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.