Bonela Swaminatham Vs. State of A.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3281 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3281 of 1999)
Petitioner: Bonela Swaminatham
Respondent: State of A.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3281 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3281 of 1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 05, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 409, 420 – Sentence – Misappropriation of fund – Sen-tence of one year imposed – By the time SLP filed, 3 months sentence undergone – Subsequent development – Accused shown to have remitted the misappropriated amount. Held that sentence is reduced to period already undergone.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. As we issued notice limited to the quantum of sentence we heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the State. Appellant was convicted under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the main allegation that he had misap-propriated a sum of Rs. 13,400/-. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He had already undergone imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The question is whether the sentence of imprisonment can be limited to the period he had already undergone. In order to invoke the sympathy of the Court learned Counsel invited attention to a development which took place subsequently that the appellant has remitted the entire amount misappropriated by him with the same Bank from which the misappropriation took place. The State was asked to check up whether the claim of remittance is true. A photocopy of the remittance slip has been produced, which prima facie shows that a sum of Rs. 13,400/- has been remitted by the appellant with the Sri Visakha Grameen Bank, Branch Srikakulam. Learned Counsel for the State also confirmed this as a fact.
3. In view of the said development, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment
to the period already undergone by the appellant.
4. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. As we issued notice limited to the quantum of sentence we heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the State. Appellant was convicted under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the main allegation that he had misap-propriated a sum of Rs. 13,400/-. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He had already undergone imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The question is whether the sentence of imprisonment can be limited to the period he had already undergone. In order to invoke the sympathy of the Court learned Counsel invited attention to a development which took place subsequently that the appellant has remitted the entire amount misappropriated by him with the same Bank from which the misappropriation took place. The State was asked to check up whether the claim of remittance is true. A photocopy of the remittance slip has been produced, which prima facie shows that a sum of Rs. 13,400/- has been remitted by the appellant with the Sri Visakha Grameen Bank, Branch Srikakulam. Learned Counsel for the State also confirmed this as a fact.
3. In view of the said development, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment
to the period already undergone by the appellant.
4. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
