LexSADHUPATI NAGESWARA RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2012] 6 S.C.R. 1143 SADHUPATI NAGESWARA RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of·2012) AUGUST 3, 2012 [P. SATHASIVA_M AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] PENAL CODE 1860: A B s. 409- Fair Price Shop dealer- Convicted and c sontenced to six months RI for misappropriation of rice entrusted to him under Food for Work Scheme (FFWS)- He/d: The eviden<?e proves that there was entrustment of oroperty of Government (rice under FFWS) to the accused agerit and the same was disbursed without proper coupons - 0 Accused had dishonest intention not to distribute the rice properly to the beneficiaries - He was rightly found guilty and. convicted of the offence punishable u/s 409 - Evidence of hostile witness. SENTENCE/SENTENCING. E Conviction and sentence of six montl7s RI and a fine of Rs.10001- awarded to Fair Price Shop dealer u/s 409 /PC - Held: Courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the ground of sympathy or delay, particularly, if it relates F to distribution of essential commodities under any Scheme of the Government intended to benefit the public at large - There is no ground for reduction of sentence. The appellant-accused, a Fair Price Shop dealer, was entrusted with the task of disbursement of rice free of G cost under "Food for Work Scheme" (FFWS) to the workers on production of coupons. On a complaint regarding irregularities in distribution of essential 1143 H 1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 6 S.C.R. A commodities, an inspection of the Shops of the appellant was carried out and it was found that he disposed of 67 .65 quintals of rice intended for FFWS without any coupons. An FIR was registered against him for offences punishable u/ss 409 and 420 IPC. The trial court B convicted the appellant-accused u/s 409 IPC and sentenced him to six months' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His appeal and revision having been dismissed, he filed the appeal. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. On 25.07.2002, PWs 2 and 3, along with PW-4 and some others, carried out an inspection of the Fair Price Shops of the appellant-accused. PW-3 stated that the appellant disposed of 67.65 quintals of rice worth D around Rs.84,562/-in black market intended for FFWS. On the same day, i.e., on ·25.07.2002, PW-2 recorded the statement of the appellant under Ext. P-7 wherein nowhere he denied the contents of the said statement. It is also clear from the prosecution evidence that the E appellant was not in a position to show the correct details, particularly, the handing over of rice to the beneficiaries by securing coupons/ vouchers from them. [Para 9] [1150-G-H; 1151-A-B] 1.2. In addition to the official witnesses, viz., PWs 1- F 4, the prosecution also examined PW-5, who worked as an Attender in Cooperative Society and was the beneficiary. He deposed that he purchased essential commodities from the Fair Price Shop of the appellant even without having a ration card. He was the person G who gave a report to the Mandal Revenue Officer (PW-1) under Ext. P1. He also admitted that he had no ration card at all. It is true that at a later point of time though PW-5 turned hostile, in his cross examination, he admitted that in Ext. P1 he mentioned that the appellant was not H SADHUPATI NAGESWARA RAO v. STATE OF 1145 ANDHRA PRADESH distributing essential commodities properly to the A beneficiaries. [para 8) [1150-C-E] 1.3. The evidence proves that there was entrustment of property of the government to the appellant. He was charged with misappropriation of 67.65 quintals of rice. The materials placed by the prosecution show that the appellant had dishonest intention not to distribute the rice properly to the beneficiaries and an offence of criminal breach of trust could be made out. All these aspects have been rightly considered by the trial court and it has found C the appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 409 IPC. The appellate and revisional courts, on appreciation of the materials placed by the prosecution and defence, rightly confirmed the same. [para 9-10) [1151-G-H; 1152- A-B] B D 2. Section 409 enables the court to award imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to ten years alongwith fine. Considering the fact that the appellant was awarded imprisonment for 6 months alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- only, the same is not excessive. On the other E hand, the courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.