Telangana High Court
CRLP/16063/2014 of Yerra Udayender, Vs The State of Telangana, on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.16063 of 2014 ORDER : The petitioner/accused, filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.177 of 2014 of Chandampet Police Station, Nalgonda District,
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16063 of 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner/accused, filed the present application underSection 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest inconnection with Crime No.177 of 2014 of Chandampet Police Station,Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable underSections 409 and 420 I.P.C.
2. It is a case where the Sub Postmaster, Devarakondaaddressed a letter to the Inspector of Posts, Devarakonda, regardingnon-receipt of due Branch Office (B.O.) bag from Kothapally BO forthe day 15.09.2014 on 17.09.2014 and non payment of NREGS wagesto wage seekers for the past ten days at Kothapally BO. Then theInspector directed one S.Venkateshwara Rao, Mail Overseer-1,Devarakonda Sub division, to visit the BO on 18.09.2014. He foundthat the Branch Post Office was not opened and the BranchPostmaster did not turn up. When he tried to call the BranchPostmaster, his mobile was switched off. Next day i.e, on19.09.2014 the Inspector made a visit to the Branch Office along withone J.China Jangaiah, mail overseer, but found the said post officeclosed. Then the Inspector opened the same by force, and madeinventory in the presence of village elders. He found shortage ofRs.64,150/- and the same was alleged to have beenmisappropriated. Basing on these allegations, the above report cameto be lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct ofthe petitioner can only be treated as negligence and there is nocriminal element involved in the offence. Since the petitioner haspaid the entire amount on the next day itself, his request may be considered.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed the petition.
5. A perusal of the material placed before the Court would showthat the petitioner closed Sub Post office from 15.09.2014 to19.09.2014. The Inspector of Posts, Devarakonda Sub Division andalso one J.China Jangaiah, Mail Overseer could not contact thepetitioner for a period of two days. As such they were forced to openthe Post Office by making an inventory. On examination of recordsthey found that the petitioner misappropriated cash of Rs.64,150/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was only negligence on thepart of the petitioner and that there was no criminal intention.
6. Since the allegations in the report prima facie constitute theoffences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C., I am notinclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, if thepetitioner is so advised shall surrender before the concernedMagistrate and make an application, which shall be dealt with thesame on merits in accordance with law on the same day or atleast bynext day.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
____________________
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
30[th] December, 2014pab