CRLRC/1047/2009 of KONATHALA RAGHUNADHA REDDY, Vs THE STATE OF A.P., REP BY PP., on 8 September 2026

ORDER:

This instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against Judgment, dated 11.06.2009, in Crl.A.No.32 of 2005 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in confirming the Judgement and Sentence dated 18.02.2005 in C.C.No.135 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution are that, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused for the charge under Section 408 I.P.C. The petitioner was a Manager of Economic Transport Organisation, Dabagardens, Vizianagaram. He was entrusted with all transactions, such as booking of goods, transportation of stocks, collection of amount and maintenance of accounts, appropriate works about the goods in the go-down by the Company vide letter No.ETO/VSP/95-96/1015 dated 15.11.1995 and the accused was also responsible for entire transactions of the company.

3. On periodical inspection by the Management, by the Inspector of Economic Transport Organisation, New Delhi, from 26.10.2002 to 06.11.2002, it was found that the petitioner with dishonest intention misappropriate the funds of the company, amounting Rs.90,031/- for his own use and also misused the bank cheques, without notice of the management. Accordingly, a

SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1047/2009

charge was framed against the petitioner under Section 408 I.P.C. and trial started. During trial, the prosecution has placed as many as 5 witnesses who are all official witnesses. Several documents were placed before the learned trial Court, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. After recording the prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court found the petitioner to be guilty of an offence punishable under Section 408 I.P.C. and he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (01) year and to pay a fine a Rs.5,000/- and I.D.S.I. for two (02) months. Petitioner further directed to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the Economic Transport Organisation represented by its Regional Manager.

4. An appeal was preferred against such order of conviction, and learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal by confirming the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner, but the award of compensation was set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old- aged person and has been dealing with the criminal litigation since 2003. He further submits that the petitioner was in custody for some period during the pendency of the criminal litigation. Accordingly, necessary order of leniency may be passed.

6. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who raised a strong objection, submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in recording the

SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1047/2009

conviction and sentence against the petitioner and, therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. Perused the observations of the learned Courts below.

8. It appears that the litigation against the petitioner for misappropriation of funds of the company has been justifiably proved by the learned trial Court by placing several documents and evidences; there are no doubts to hold that the guilty of the petitioner has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It further appears that the petitioner was entrusted to look after the transactions of the company, collection of funds and maintenance of bank accounts. He proved to be misappropriated funds to his own use and also misused the bank cheques.

9. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the order of conviction passed by both the Courts below. The petitioner is aged about 67 years and he is a senior citizen who must have suffered both financial and mental agony during the entire period of long pending of this criminal litigation; but it is true that the petitioner was convicted for an economic offence. At this juncture, only considering the old age of the petitioner to substantive sentence is modified and reduced to three (3) months.

10. Order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of this criminal revision case is vacated. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Court or before the jail authority to serve out remaining

SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1047/2009

portion of sentence; within six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this order. Period already undergone by the petitioner would be set off according to the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C corresponding Section 468 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

11. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

Dated: 09.09.2026 CVD/ASN