Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Mustafa Fattu Tadvi, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Raver, Dist. Jalgaon in Regular Criminal Case Nos. 132/1987 and 133/1987 for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (criminal breach of trust by an employee). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000, with a default sentence of six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The applicant appealed to the lower appellate court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 31/1997 and 32/1997, which were dismissed by a common judgment dated 9th June 2000, confirming the conviction and sentence. The applicant then filed two criminal revision applications before the High Court. The applicant was a salesman at the Adiwasi Seva Sahakari Society, Lohare, Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon from 31st December 1985 to 28th June 1986. The prosecution alleged that during this period, the applicant misappropriated funds of the society. The applicant's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 408 IPC. The State's counsel submitted that the concurrent findings of fact were based on cogent and consistent evidence and should not be interfered with. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision applications, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Criminal Breach of Trust by Employee - Section 408 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction - The applicant, a salesman, was convicted for misappropriation of funds of the Adiwasi Seva Sahakari Society. The prosecution proved that the applicant was entrusted with property and dishonestly misappropriated it. The courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact based on cogent and consistent evidence. In revision, the High Court held that there is no perversity in the findings and the conviction is sustainable. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Interference - Concurrent Findings - The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The learned A.P.P. argued that the court should be slow in interfering, and the court agreed, finding no perversity. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable in law and whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below suffer from any perversity warranting interference in revision.
Final Decision
Both Criminal Revision Applications are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant under Section 408 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Criminal breach of trust by employee
- Section 408 IPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- scope of revision
- perversity
