ORDER : These two revision petitions are considered together since, both the complainant and the accused and the charges leveled are one and the same in both the criminal revision petitions. The judgment of conviction and sentence against which the present criminal revision petitions are filed are also delivered on the same day independently. 2. These criminal revision petitions are filed challenging the judgments passed in Criminal Case Nos.52/1998 and 53/1998 dated 19.12.2009, wherein, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and the same has been challenged in Crl.A.Nos.6/2010 and 7/2010 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge at Mysuru, wherein the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.04.2012. 3. The factual matrix of the case in Criminal Case No.52/1998 is that charge has been framed against the petitioner herein for committing an offence of Section 408 of IPC when he was working as Secretary of Halu Utpadakara Sangha, wherein he has misappropriated an amount of Rs.18,473/-as per the audit report for the year 1991-92. 4. The factual matrix of the case in Criminal Case No.53/1998 is that charge has been framed against the petitioner herein for committing an offence of Section 408 of IPC when he was working as Secretary of Halu Utpadakara Sangha, wherein he has misappropriated an amount of Rs.27,706.36/-as per the audit report for the year 1993-1994 till 20.04.1993 and he has not handed over the cash in hand to the President of the institution and there was an endorsement to that effect. 5. In Criminal Case No.52/1998, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P39. The petitioner has not led any defence evidence and he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner has not led any defence evidence and he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.6/2010 and the Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 6. In Criminal Case No.53/1998, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P38. The petitioner has not led any defence evidence and he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.7/2010 and the Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed in Criminal Case No.52/1998 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.6/2010, Criminal Revision Petition No.588/2012 is filed. The main contention of the petitioner is that, misappropriation was found in the year 1991 to 1992 and the ARCS has passed the orders to file criminal complaint in the year 1994 and the complaint has been filed on 31.01.1996 and there was a delay and the same has not been properly explained. 8. The counsel would also submit that both the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge has observed that the witnesses P.Ws.2, 9, 10 and 11 are very important witnesses and the fact that the accused was working as Secretary of the Saligrama Milk Producers Co-operative Society is not in dispute. The prosecution has to prove the powers and duties of the accused and also the manner of entrustment before seeking conviction against the accused and the same has not been proved. 9. The prosecution has to prove the powers and duties of the accused and also the manner of entrustment before seeking conviction against the accused and the same has not been proved. 9. The counsel would also submit that, both the Courts have mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.8 as far as the entrustment is concerned, the prosecution has not proved about the exclusive powers of the accused to handle the monetary transactions of the society. Further, it is also important to note that, both P.Ws.8 and 10 have been treated as hostile witnesses and their evidence cannot be given any importance while proving the prosecution case. 10. The counsel would further submit that both the Courts have committed an error in relying upon the evidence of P.W.14 and Ex.P39 and both the Courts lost sight of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was having exclusive powers. It is also contended that both the Courts committed an error accepting the evidence of P.W.7, even though he has stated that there is a deficit of Rs.17,988/-in the year 1991-92 and the same has been remitted by the accused to the society, both the Courts failed to take note of the said fact into consideration. The counsel would also submit that the only allegation is that the receipts issued by the petitioner have not been accounted and the job was provided to him second time, after he made the payment and there was no intention to defraud the society. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that P.W.7, the Auditor categorically depose with regard to the misappropriation is concerned and audit report is marked and no effective cross-examination is done. She would also submit that P.Ws.8 and 9, who are the Directors of the Society have categorically deposed against the petitioner and they have also not been cross-examined. P.W.2 is the complainant, who gave the complaint and based the complaint, case has been registered against the petitioner and no dispute with regard to the fact that he was working as Secretary and now, he cannot contend that there was no entrustment. 12. P.W.2 is the complainant, who gave the complaint and based the complaint, case has been registered against the petitioner and no dispute with regard to the fact that he was working as Secretary and now, he cannot contend that there was no entrustment. 12. In reply to the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount has already been paid and the incident has taken place 26 years back and the charge-sheet also disclose that amount has been paid. Hence, the counsel prays that lenient view may be taken and this Court has to modify the judgment of conviction and sentence. 13. In Criminal Revision Petition No.589/2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and similar grounds are urged in this criminal revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts convicted the petitioner, based on the evidence of P.W.7 and apart from that witness, no other witness is coming forward to show that the accused was having absolute entrustment of the property of the society. 14. The counsel would also submit that the entire case revolves around the fact that not handing over the charge of Rs.27,706.76/-by the accused. But, the accused was compelled to pay the said amount even though, he is not liable to pay the same. He would also submit that the society can recover the amount by initiating civil proceedings but, both the Courts have failed to observe the said fact and the same is liable to be set aside. 15. The counsel would also submit that the prosecution mainly relied upon the document Ex.P31-audit report and Ex.P9-cash book also disclose that petitioner has sought time to pay the amount. The counsel would also submit that a resolution was passed on 04.09.1996, after registration of the case when the petitioner has deposited the amount and he was also given appointment on the salary of Rs.700/-and ordered to deduct an amount of Rs.500/-per month towards misappropriation of the amount. Hence, the Court has to take a lenient view regarding repayment of the amount. 16. Hence, the Court has to take a lenient view regarding repayment of the amount. 16. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner admitted misappropriation in terms of the document which is marked as Ex.P9 and he has not paid the entire amount and the amount was repaid in installment after reappointing him and criminal breach of trust has been proved. She would also submit that the prosecution led both oral and documentary evidence and the case rests upon documentary evidence placed on record regarding misappropriation and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. 17. In reply to the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in view of repayment of the amount, lenient view may be taken. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (1) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 408 of IPC in Criminal Case No.52/1998? (2) Whether the Appellate Court has committed an error in confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in Crl.A.No.6/2010 and whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction? (3) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 408 of IPC in Criminal Case No.53/1998? (4) Whether the Appellate Court has committed an error in confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in Crl.A.No.7/2010 and whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction? (5) What order? Point Nos.(1) and (2) 19. The revision in Crl.R.P.No.588/2012 is in respect of judgment of conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.52/1998 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.6/2010. The petitioner is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC. The allegation is that, as per the audit report of the year 1991-92, this petitioner being the Secretary has misappropriated an amount of Rs.18,473/-. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 14 and also got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P39. 20. The petitioner is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC. The allegation is that, as per the audit report of the year 1991-92, this petitioner being the Secretary has misappropriated an amount of Rs.18,473/-. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 14 and also got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P39. 20. The main contention of the petitioner in this petition is that, there was a delay in lodging the complaint. But the fact that upon filing the audit report, the misappropriate came to light is not in dispute and after following the procedure, ARCS passed an order to file complaint in the year 1994 and hence, the complaint is filed on 31.01.1996. Unless the material is collected regarding misappropriation and obtaining permission from the concerned authority, the complaint cannot be filed is not in dispute. Hence, the very contention that there is a delay in filing the complaint cannot be accepted. 21. It has to be noted that the fact that this petitioner was working as Secretary is not in dispute but, the counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there was no entrustment and this petitioner was not having exclusive powers to deal with the financial affairs of the society. The prosecution, in order to prove the fact that he was the Secretary, examined certain witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2, 8, 9, 10 and 11 regarding entrustment of property and dishonestly misappropriating the amount belonging to the society. 22. P.W.2 is the complainant. He has deposed that he was working as Secretary and he had lodged the complaint, after obtaining permission from the authority. P.W.2 also relied upon audit report, cash book, receipt book and also the resolution book. P.Ws.8 and 10 are the Directors of the said society at the relevant point in time. The evidence of P.Ws.8, 10 and 11 is that the accused was working as Secretary and relied upon the documentary evidence, particularly Ex.P36 i.e., resolution book and the same clearly disclose that, after retirement of one Krishnegowda, this petitioner, who was working as Clerk has been appointed as Secretary. To prove the fact that he was working as Secretary, the document at Ex.P36-resolution book is produced. 23. To prove the fact that he was working as Secretary, the document at Ex.P36-resolution book is produced. 23. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the entrustment is concerned and it is his contention that he was not entrusted with financial affairs of the society. But, P.W.8-Director has been examined and he categorically says that this petitioner was looking after the financial transaction of the society and books of accounts were also in his custody and this witness has not been cross-examined with regard to the allegations made against him. P.W.10 is also a Director. He also deposed that the petitioner was entrusted with financial affairs of the institution and he has also not been cross-examined and the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 remains unchallenged. 24. It is important to note that the Trial Court also relied upon the document at Ex.P36 i.e., resolution book which clearly disclose that the accused has been entrusted and authorized to deal with the bank accounts of the said institution. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of P.W.14, who is the present Secretary to show the entrustment of financial affairs and he has also produced Bye-law copy of the institution which has been marked as Ex.P39 with regard to the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Secretary. 25. Having considered the evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that the petitioner was entrusted with the financial affairs of the society. In respect of dishonestly misappropriating the amount for his own use is concerned, the auditor has been examined as P.W.7, who has audited the accounts for the year 1991-1992 and the same is marked as Ex.P24. P.W.7 in his evidence has given the details with regard to the misappropriation of the amount. No doubt, he has been cross-examined partly and on perusal of the cross-examination, it is seen that nothing is elicited regarding misappropriation is concerned and there is no effective cross-examination of this witness. It is also an admitted fact that the amount was repaid and when he repaid the amount admitting his guilt, it is clear that there was a misappropriation of the amount of the society by this petitioner. 26. These are the aspects which have been considered by the Trial Court while appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. It is also an admitted fact that the amount was repaid and when he repaid the amount admitting his guilt, it is clear that there was a misappropriation of the amount of the society by this petitioner. 26. These are the aspects which have been considered by the Trial Court while appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The material evidence is also placed before the Court, apart from oral evidence of the witnesses, particularly, the receipt book i.e., Exs.P4 to P23. The audit report is also marked as Ex.P24 and nothing is elicited with regard to Ex.P24 and anomaly committed by P.W.7 while submitting this report. The documents, particularly Ex.P-24-audit report as well as Exs.P36-resolution boom and Ex.P39-Bye-law book substantiates the case of the prosecution and the Trial Court mainly relied upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also the documentary evidence. 27. The Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, taken note of the document Ex.P36-resolution book and Bye-law book at Ex.P39 to prove the factum that the petitioner was working as Secretary of the society and financial work was entrusted to him, which is discussed in para No.14. The Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that this petitioner was appointed as Secretary after one Krishnegowda resigned from the post of Secretary and it is the very contention that P.Ws.8, 10, 11 and 12 are treated as hostile and their evidence cannot be relied upon. But, in the case on hand, it is seen that in the cross-examination of P.W.7, nothing is elicited regarding misappropriation, which has been discussed in para No.15 of the judgment of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also in para No.16 observing that Ex.P39 clearly reveals that it is the duty of the Secretary to maintain all accounts of the society and to supervise all the other affairs of the society, given a definite finding and so also in para No.17, taken note of the evidence of P.Ws.3, 5 and 6, who are the panch witnesses and also taken note of the evidence of P.W.5, who has spoken with regard to the fact that relevant documents were seized under Ex.P3-mahazar and P.W.4, who became the Secretary subsequent to the year 1993 to 2000 also speaks with regard to the role of the Secretary. 28. 28. The Appellate Court has also listed out the money which was received by the petitioner in para No.18 and also stated with regard to the misappropriation of the amount in para No.19. Considering all these material on record, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 29. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, both the Courts have taken note of the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence. The prosecution also mainly relied upon the documents of Exs.P36-resolution book and P39Byelaw book and also Ex.P24-audit report and taken note of the evidence of P.W.7, the auditor, who has been cross-examined and no effective cross-examination was done. Hence, in order to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court, this Court has to exercise the powers under the revisional jurisdiction and the same can only be exercised, if the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are perverse and if cogent evidence is not considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and the order suffers from its legality and correctness. However, the same is not found in the case on hand and both the Courts have applied their judicious mind and considered evidence of material witnesses as well as the documentary evidence and has given the definite finding that this petitioner has misappropriated the amount. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(1) and (2) as ‘negative’. Point Nos.(3) and (4) 30. The revision in Crl.R.P.No.589/2012 is in respect of judgment of conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.53/1998 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.7/2010, wherein also an allegation is made against this petitioner that he has misappropriated an amount of Rs.27,706.36/-for the period 1993-1994 i.e., up to 20.04.1993. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P38. 31. The main contention of the petitioner in this petition is that, there was a delay in lodging the complaint. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P38. 31. The main contention of the petitioner in this petition is that, there was a delay in lodging the complaint. But the fact that upon filing the audit report, the misappropriate came to light is not in dispute and after following the procedure, ARCS passed an order to file complaint in the year 1994 and hence, the complaint is filed on 31.01.1996. Unless the material is collected regarding misappropriation and obtaining permission from the concerned authority, the complaint cannot be filed is not in dispute. Hence, the very contention that there is a delay in filing the complaint cannot be accepted. 32. Now, this Court has to analyze the material on record with regard to the merits of the case is concerned. The charges leveled against the petitioner is that, till his removal from the job of Secretary, he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.27,706.36/-i.e., cash which was in hand was not handed over to the President of the said society. The auditor has given the report with regard to misappropriation. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges, relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P38. The prosecution, mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 8 to 10. 33. The witness, P.W.1 has deposed that the petitioner was working as Secretary. P.W.2 is the complainant and he reiterates that the petitioner was the Secretary and P.W.3 is the President of the said society. Apart from that, P.Ws.8 and 9, who are the Directors have also supported the case of the prosecution and Ex.P6 is the certified copy of resolution book. As per Ex.P6, on 22.12.1996, after retirement of one Krishnegowda, the accused, who was the clerk of the said society has been appointed as the Secretary of the institution. Hence, it is clear that he was working as Secretary. But, the petitioner herein has specifically denied the entrustment of financial affairs of the institution. Hence, P.W.1 deposed regarding entrustment of the work and also this petitioner was suspended from the post of Secretary vide decision dated 20.04.1994. Hence, it is clear that he was working as Secretary. But, the petitioner herein has specifically denied the entrustment of financial affairs of the institution. Hence, P.W.1 deposed regarding entrustment of the work and also this petitioner was suspended from the post of Secretary vide decision dated 20.04.1994. The prosecution also relied upon Ex.P9-cash book, the originals of which was produced in other connected case and the same is marked as Ex.P9(a) to show that he was in-charge of the financial affairs of the institution in terms of Ex.P9-cash book. The witness, who have been examined before the Trial Court i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 and 9 have clearly stated that the petitioner was in-charge of the financial affairs of the society. 34. Apart from that, P.W.7, the auditor, who has audited the accounts has been examined and the audit report is marked as Ex.P31 and his evidence is also extracted in the order of the Trial Court and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.7 regarding the report submitted by him which is marked as Ex.P31. The prosecution also relied upon the letter in terms of Ex.P35 and he also admitted his guilt and took time to pay the amount and he also deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/-and the same is not in dispute and provision is also made to pay the amount out of his salary, since he was later again appointed on salary of Rs.700/-and out of the same, an amount of Rs.500/-was deducted towards the amount misappropriated. 35. When such material is available before the Court and the Appellate Court also, in Crl.A.No.7/2010 discussed in detail in para Nos.12 and 13, particularly considered the documentary evidence of Ex.P6, wherein meeting of Directors was convened since, earlier Secretary had resigned and this petitioner was appointed as Secretary and in Ex.P38 also, the appointment of Secretary is also shown. The Appellate Court also taking note of Ex.P35 which clearly reveals that the accused himself has given in writing on 06.04.1994 that he had not handed over cash in hand to the tune of Rs.27,706.36 on 20.04.1993 and also sought time to repay the said amount to the society. The said document has not been disputed and total amount is also admitted in the said document. 36. The said document has not been disputed and total amount is also admitted in the said document. 36. The Appellate Court also, taking note of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 to 10 and also considering Ex.P6-resolution book, Ex.P38-proceedings book and also Exs.P5, P7 and P8attendance registers are seized and so also, taken note of evidence of P.W.7, who is the star witness and he had audited the accounts of the society and submitted report in terms of Ex.P31 and hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 37. Having considered both the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and also looking into the material on record i.e., prosecution witness as well as the documentary evidence and the offence under Section 408 of IPC could be proved by producing document and documents are also produced before the Court. Apart from that, there was an admission on the part of the petitioner admitting that he had not handed over the amount and he himself sought time to repay the amount. Hence, I do not find any ground to invoke revisional jurisdiction. This Court can invoke revisional jurisdiction, if the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are perverse and if cogent evidence is not considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and the order suffers from its legality and correctness. However, the same is not found in the case on hand and both the Courts have applied their judicious mind and considered evidence of material witnesses as well as the documentary evidence and has given the definite finding that this petitioner has misappropriated the amount. 38. Now, coming to the sentence part is concerned in both the matters, the counsel would vehemently contend that this Court has to take lenient view, considering the age of the petitioner and since the incident has taken place 26 years back and he has also repaid the amount, sentence may be modified. 39. Having perused the material on record, it is clear that, from 1991 to 1993, this petitioner collected the amount and issued receipt for having received the amount and he did not take the same into the account of the society. 39. Having perused the material on record, it is clear that, from 1991 to 1993, this petitioner collected the amount and issued receipt for having received the amount and he did not take the same into the account of the society. It is also important to note that he was working as Secretary and financial responsibilities are entrusted to him and he is an employee of the society and the duty of the employee is to work with devotion when financial responsibilities are entrusted to him. However, the same is not done. Almost for the period from 1991 to 1994 till his removal, he had indulged in the act of misappropriation of amount for his own use and hence, two cases are registered against him. It is also admitted that, he did not handover the cash, when he was removed from the service and it is a case of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. 40. When such being the facts of the case and material on record, the Trial Court imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in each case. In default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the sentence also, as the same is not too harsh and the same commensurate with the gravity of the offence since, he has committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and misappropriated the amount belonging to the society for his own use and consequently, he was removed from the service. The repayment afterwards is not a ground to show mercy, when he did not devote to his duty and indulged in misappropriation of the public fund. The matter is pending for a long time is also not a ground to show lenience in his favour. Therefore, it is not a fit case even for reducing the sentence also. Point No.(5) 41. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER : The criminal revision petitions are dismissed.