1 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1872/2009 APHC010525042009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1872/2009 Between: 1. KANCHERLA OMKARAM & 2 OTHERS, S/O HANUMANTHA RAO, R/O AMRUTHALURU, AMRUTHALURU MANDALAM, GUNTUR DIST. 2. KOTTAPALLI SAMBASIVA RAO,, S/O PARIPURNAIAH, R/O AMRUTHALURU, AMRUTHALURU MANDALAM, GUNTUR DIST. 3. VALLURU SREERAMA MURTHY,, S/O NANCHARAIAH, R/O AMRUTHALURU, AMRUTHALURU MANDALAM, GUNTUR DIST. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the S.H.O., Amruthaluru P.S., Guntur Dist., Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Sentence imposed in C.C.No.37 of 2004 on the file of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, dated 10.12.08 as confirmed in Crl.A.No.390 of 2008 on the file of the XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Tenali, dated 04.11.09. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2614 OF 2009 2 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1872/2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.37 of 2004 on the file of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, dated 10.12.08. IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2621 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the Judgment and sentence imposed in CC.No. 37 of 2004 on the file of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, Dt.10.12.2008 as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.390 of 2009 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, Dt.04.11.2009 pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CH RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1872/2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1872 OF 2009 ORDER: This instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment, dated 04.11.2009, in Crl.A.No.390 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, wherein and whereunder the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur District, dated 10.12.2008 in C.C.No.37 of 2004. 2. Brief facts of the matter are that six (06) persons including the present petitioners were arrayed as accused before the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 408 and 477 read with Section 79(F) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. 3. During trial, A-5 expired. The other five (05) accused persons were found guilty and were convicted under Section 408 IPC. The learned trial Court imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- each. The order of conviction and sentence was under challenge before the learned Appellate Court. After hearing the appellants, the learned Appellate Court has recorded an order of acquittal in respect of A-2, but confirmed the 4 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1872/2009 conviction and sentence against all other accused persons. A-3 filed a separate revision against the order of the learned Appellate Court. During the pendency of the revision, A-3 expired. Accordingly, the case against A- 3 has been abated and the revision has been dismissed. The present revision has been preferred by A-1, A-4 and A-6. 4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that A-1 and A-2 are the Ex- salesmen of Amarthaluru Cooperative Rural Bank, A-3 is the Ex-Sarpanch, A-4 was a clerk, A-5 was Ex-attender and A-6 was a Sharoff in the said Rural Bank. All the accused persons are alleged to have misappropriated a huge amount from the funds of the said rural bank by showing false entries and false amounts in the concerned account books, ledger books, and vouchers, credited vouchers and receiving amounts from the beneficiaries and remitting them into the bank. The matter was enquired by PW.3; thereafter, he submitted his report vide Ex.P.54. On the basis of the report, matter was reported to the police and a crime was registered. During trial, prosecution has produced as many as five (05) witnesses who are cited as PWs.1 to 5. Several documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P60. It appears from the entire prosecution case that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 has categorically exhibited the documents of the bank, including cash books, minute books, stock books, delivery registers, sale bill book, stock registers, ledger extract and report of PW.3, etc. The entire prosecution 5 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1872/2009 case is on the basis of documents which were properly collected by I.O. and produced before learned trial Court. It further appears that during appeal, learned Appellate Court was of view that A-2, aged about 82 years, and from the evidence of PW.3, it appears that A-2 had not paid any salary for the relevant period; he did not intentionally misappropriate the amount. 5. Heard Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent/State. 6. I have perused the entire observations of the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. I have also gone through the evidence of PW.3, who is the main witness for the prosecution. Considering the entire aspect, it appears that there is no illegality and impropriety in the impugned order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court against the present petitioners. Hence, order of conviction sustained. However, the present three (03) petitioners are aged persons, who are facing criminal proceedings since the year 2004. More than 20 years have already elapsed; thereby, though the order of conviction is found to have justified, I think it is necessary to pass an order converting the substantive sentence imposed upon the present petitioners to the period already undergone by them during enquiry, interrogation, trial and appeal period, and they are further directed 6 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1872/2009 to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each before learned trial Court within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this order. Failing which, the order of substantive sentence would be sustained. 7. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 17.09.2026 CVD