advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Reduction of Sentence - Embezzlement of Rs.43,500/- - Deposited Rs.5,76,000/- for alleged embezzlement in to trial court as per order of Apex court - Appellants are aged person - not keeping good health - Apex court held that In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, we are inclined to modify the sentence awarded to the appellants suitably. Accordingly, we reduce the sentences awarded to the appellants in both the appeals to the period already undergone by them. The deposit of Rs.5,76,000/- made by the appellants in the present case will not prejudice them in so far as other cases pending against them and the said deposit shall be deemed to be compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.PC towards embezzlement allegedly committed by the appellants and the same shall be released to the complainant-bank, if not already released. With the above modification in sentence, these appeals are partly allowed and disposed of.= Dayanand Ramkrishna Shet … Appellant(s) versus State of Karnataka … Respondent(s) = 2014(May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41538

  Reduction of Sentence - Embezzlement of Rs.43,500/- - Deposited Rs.5,76,000/- for alleged embezzlement in to trial court as per order of Apex court - Appellants are aged person - not keeping good health - Apex court held that In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, we  are  inclined  to modify the sentence awarded to the appellants suitably. Accordingly, we reduce the sentences awarded to  the  appellants in both the appeals to the period  already  undergone  by  them.   The deposit of Rs.5,76,000/- made by the appellants in  the  present  case  will not prejudice them in so far as other cases pending against  them    and the said deposit shall be deemed to be compensation  in  terms  of Section 357 Cr.PC towards  embezzlement  allegedly  committed  by  the appellants and the same shall be released to the complainant-bank,  if not already released.  With the above modification in sentence,  these  appeals are partly allowed and disposed of =

 The charges in the present case pertained  to  embezzlement   of
      the amount of Rs.43,500/- for the period from 30.3.1995 to  3.11.1995.
      We  also  find  that  the  total  amount  of  Rs.5,76,000/-  allegedly
      embezzled by the appellants have already  been  deposited  before  the
      Trial Court pursuant to our order dated 2.1.2013.  The appellants  are
      aged persons as on date and are said to be not  keeping  good  health.
      In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, we  are  inclined  to
      modify the sentence awarded to the appellants suitably.

      8.    Accordingly, we reduce the sentences awarded to  the  appellants
      in both the appeals to the period  already  undergone  by  them.   The
      deposit of Rs.5,76,000/- made by the appellants in  the  present  case
      will not prejudice them in so far as other cases pending against  them
      and the said deposit shall be deemed to be compensation  in  terms  of
      Section 357 Cr.PC towards  embezzlement  allegedly  committed  by  the
      appellants and the same shall be released to the complainant-bank,  if
      not already released.  With the above modification in sentence,  these
      appeals are partly allowed and disposed of.

2014(May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41538

T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN

                                                           NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1166    OF 2014
        [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.84 of 2013]
                                    With

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1181   OF 2014
        (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.85 of 2013)






      Dayanand Ramkrishna Shet                     …     Appellant(s)

                                   versus

      State of Karnataka                                     … Respondent(s)




                               J U D G M E N T




      C. NAGAPPAN, J.




      1.    Leave granted in both the special leave petitions. CRMP  No.3134
      of 2013 and CRMP No.13115  of  2013  seeking  extension  of  time  for
      deposit are allowed.




      2.    The appeals are preferred against the judgment  dated  13.9.2011
      passed by the High Court of Karnataka  Circuit  Bench  at  Dharwad  in
      Criminal Appeal no.838 of 2005.

      3.    The appellants in both the appeals are  accused  nos.  1  and  2
      respectively in C.C. no.135 of 2001 on the file of Principal J.M.F.C.,
      Honnavar and  they  were  tried  for  the  offences  punishable  under
      Sections 409 and 467 of IPC and the Trial Court acquitted them of  the
      charges.  Challenging the same the State preferred appeal in  Criminal
      Appeal no.838 of 2005 on the file of the High Court of  Karnataka  and
      the High Court after hearing both sides allowed  the  appeal  and  set
      aside the judgment of acquittal and found both the accused  guilty  of
      the charges framed and sentenced them each to undergo one year  simple
      imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default  to  undergo
      simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable  under
      Section 467 read with Section 34 IPC and further sentenced  them  each
      to undergo  one  year  simple  imprisonment  and  to  pay  a  fine  of
      Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three  months  simple  imprisonment
      for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34  IPC
      and directed the  sentences  to  run  concurrently.   Challenging  the
      conviction and sentence both the accused have  individually  preferred
      these appeals.

      4.    Briefly the facts of the case are as follows  :   Accused  no.1-
      Dayanand Ramkrishna Shet was the Manager  and  accused  no.2-Marthappa
      Radhakrishna Shet  was  the  Assistant  Manager  in  Suvarnakarar  Co-
      operative Society Ltd. and they were empowered to sanction  the  loans
      to the customers of the bank on the security by pledging gold and gold
      ornaments.  During the audit conducted for the period from 1.4.1997 to
      31.3.1998, PW26-Balakrishna Subraya Naik found that an amount  to  the
      tune of Rs.5,76,000/- has been misappropriated by  the  accused  nos.1
      and 2 by forging the documents and falsifying the  accounts.   On  the
      complaint at the instance of  the  Deputy  Registrar  of  Co-operative
      Society a case under Crime no.285 of 1999 came  to  be  registered  on
      1.12.1999 against both the accused for the offences punishable  mainly
      under  Sections  467  and  409  read  with  Section  34  IPC  for  the
      misappropriation of the amount of Rs.43,500/- during the  period  from
      30.3.1995 to 3.11.1995 and after investigation the final  report  came
      to be filed.  The Trial Court framed charges under  Sections  467  and
      409 read with Section 34 IPC and the prosecution examined PW1 to  PW35
      and marked Exs. P1 to P72 besides MOs 1 to 22.  Ex.D1  was  marked  as
      side of the defence.  The Trial Court acquitted both the accused  only
      on the ground that the sanction to prosecute  as  required  under  the
      provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act was not obtained.
       The State preferred the appeal and  the  High  Court  set  aside  the
      judgment of  acquittal  by  allowing  the  appeal  and  convicted  and
      sentenced both the accused as directed above.

      5.     Challenging  the  conviction  and  sentence  both  the  accused
      preferred independent appeals and this Court  by  common  order  dated
      2.1.2013 directed both the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.2,88,000/-
       each being the sum embezzled by them, before the Trial  Court  within
      four weeks  and  subject  to  that  condition  issued  notice  to  the
      respondent to the question of sentence only and further  directed  the
      Trial Court to release the said amount to the complainant bank.

      6.    The learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  submitted  that  the
      appellants have deposited the entire sum as  directed  and  have  also
      paid the fine and  the  appellants  are  now  aged  64  and  52  years
      respectively and not keeping good health.  We also heard  the  learned
      counsel appearing for respondent-State.

      7.    The charges in the present case pertained  to  embezzlement   of
      the amount of Rs.43,500/- for the period from 30.3.1995 to  3.11.1995.
      We  also  find  that  the  total  amount  of  Rs.5,76,000/-  allegedly
      embezzled by the appellants have already  been  deposited  before  the
      Trial Court pursuant to our order dated 2.1.2013.  The appellants  are
      aged persons as on date and are said to be not  keeping  good  health.
      In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, we  are  inclined  to
      modify the sentence awarded to the appellants suitably.

      8.    Accordingly, we reduce the sentences awarded to  the  appellants
      in both the appeals to the period  already  undergone  by  them.   The
      deposit of Rs.5,76,000/- made by the appellants in  the  present  case
      will not prejudice them in so far as other cases pending against  them
      and the said deposit shall be deemed to be compensation  in  terms  of
      Section 357 Cr.PC towards  embezzlement  allegedly  committed  by  the
      appellants and the same shall be released to the complainant-bank,  if
      not already released.  With the above modification in sentence,  these
      appeals are partly allowed and disposed of.




                                                              …………………………….J.
                                             (T.S. Thakur)




                                                               ……………………………J.
                                             (C. Nagappan)
      New Delhi;
      May   9, 2014




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.