1980 INSC 0325
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                 State of Karnataka

                                                           Vs.

                                                      Marigowda

                                               Crl.A.No.221 of 1975

                           (O. Chinnappa Reddy, A. P. Sen and Baharul Islam, JJ.)

                                                      19.08.1980

                                                       ORDER

1. The respondent, Marigowda, was the Secretary of the Aladahalli Large-scale Co-operative
Society, Mallipatna. He was convicted by the learned First Class Magistrate, Holenarasipura of an
offence under S. 408, I. P. C. on a finding that he had committed criminal breach of trust in respect
of three sums of money, namely, Rupees 1,500/-, Rs. 175/- and Rs. 100/-, belonging to the Society,
In respect of these amounts, he had made entries in the cash book, Ex.P-9(a)P-9(c) and P-9(d) as if
the amounts had been drawn from the society and credited into the District Co-operative Central
Bank, Hassan. The defence of the respondent was that these amounts had been paid to PW 2,
Executive Officer of the Bank, to be deposited with the Central Co-operative Bank. Advantage was
sought to be taken of the circumstance that PW 2 had, in fact, deposited three identical sums of
money with the Central Co-operative Bank, but, according to the evidence of PW 2, those amounts
had been received by him not from the accused but from other persons. A sum of Rs. 1,500 had
been received from Mallinathapura Co-operative Society, Mallinathpura and that society had also
been given a receipt for that amount. The amount of Rs. 100 had been received by PW 2 from Koti
Basave Gowda and not from the accused. The amount of Rs. 175/- was part of an amount of Rupees
600/- which had been received by PW 2 for being credited in the District Co-operative Central
Bank, but the misappropriated amount was not part of this amount of Rs. 600/-. The evidence of PW
2 was not challenged in cross-examination. His evidence was also fully substantiated by the entries
in the accounts of the District Co-operative Central Bank.
2. The trial court accepted the evidence of PW 2 and convicted the respondent as stated above. The
conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. In revision the High court interfering with concurrent findings of fact, acquitted the accused. A
perusal of the judgment of the High Court makes it obvious that the High Court had misdirected
itself into thinking that the three amounts paid by PW 2 into the District Co-operative Central Bank
pertained to the amounts which the accused was alleged to have misappropriated. PW 2 expressly
stated that the amounts had been received by him from Mallinathapura Co-operative Society, etc.,
and his evidence was not challenged in cross-examination. No suggestion was made to him and
there was no justification whatsoever for the High Court to reach the conclusion that these amounts
were the very amounts which the accused was alleged to have misappropriated.

4. We are afraid that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, set aside
and the conviction is restored. But having regard to the time that has elapsed, we do not think that it
is necessary to send the respondent back to jail. In the circumstances of the case we reduce the
sentence of imprisonment to the period already suffered by him but increase the fine imposed upon
him by the trial court from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,750/-. If the amount of fine is realised, it will be paid
to the Aladahalli Large Scale Co-operative Society. In default of payment of fine, the accused will
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

         Order accordingly.