ORDER : M.B. SNEHALATHA, J. Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.3090/2009 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and he is the appellant in Crl.A No.15/2016 of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. In this revision, he assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 . 2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 5.5.2009 at around 11 am., accused who was working as Gramin Dak Sevak at Eroor Post Office, tore up a postal article entrusted to him for delivery and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 . 3. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who tried the case found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 52 of the Post Office Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appeal preferred by him as Crl.A No.15/2016 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam was dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence. 4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this revision petition contending that the trial court and the appellate court have not analysed the evidence in its correct perspective; that the trial court and the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the fact that there was an evil design of the departmental higher-ups to frame him in a false case to wreck vengeance against him; that the trial court and the Sessions Court failed to take note of the enormous delay in filing the complaint and failed to take note of the inconsistencies in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Thus, according to the revision petitioner/accused, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings rendered by the trial court and the appellate court and submitted that both the trial court and the Sessions Court have analysed the evidence in its correct perspective and there are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the verdict of guilty and the order of sentence. 6. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings rendered by the trial court and the appellate court and submitted that both the trial court and the Sessions Court have analysed the evidence in its correct perspective and there are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the verdict of guilty and the order of sentence. 6. It is a settled principle that the scope under the revision against the concurrent finding of fact is very much limited. Ordinarily, the revisional court will not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact unless the finding of the court, is perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or when the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. 7. Bearing in mind the above principles, now let us see whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court. 8. PW2 was the Postal Assistant of Eroor Post Office on the relevant date. On 5.5.2009, she was in charge of Postmaster. According to her, on 5.5.2009 PW3, who was the delivery clerk, entrusted a letter addressed to one 'Mr.K.B.Krishnakumar, Karuvelil House', to the accused for delivery. She has further testified that the said letter which was received in the said post office on 29.4.2009 was initially entrusted to a postwoman of that post office. Later, when it was found that the addressee was residing in the beat prescribed for the accused, it was assigned to the accused for effecting delivery. But the accused objected to the same and refused to take delivery. PW2 intervened and asked the accused to comply with the direction. Enraged by the direction of PW2, the accused tore up the said postal article. Ext.P2 series are the pieces of the torn letter. PW2 caused to make the entries regarding the incident in the error book kept in the post office and Ext.P3 is the copy of the relevant pages of the error book containing the said entries. 9. Enraged by the direction of PW2, the accused tore up the said postal article. Ext.P2 series are the pieces of the torn letter. PW2 caused to make the entries regarding the incident in the error book kept in the post office and Ext.P3 is the copy of the relevant pages of the error book containing the said entries. 9. PW3 who was then working as a delivery clerk at Eroor Post Office testified that at the time of incident, accused was working as E.D.D.I postman in charge of beat No.6 of Eroor Post Office; that on 5.5.2009, he entrusted a postal article to the accused for delivery; that the accused refused it and tore up the said letter. PW3 made Ext.P3 entries regarding the incident in the error book. He is an attesting witness to Ext.P4 mahazar. He has also testified that he made entries in the error book in consultation with PW2 who was in charge of the Post Master. He has identified Ext.P2 series as the pieces of the letter which was torn off by the accused. He has also testified that the said postal article was a letter returned by another E.D.D.I postwoman named Vinaya of beat No.5 with endorsement ‘not known,’ after five days of the assignment to her. 10. PW4, who was the postman of Eroor Post Office also testified that the incident occurred on 5.5.2009 at the said post office; that the accused who was a E.D.D.I Postman, tore up a letter entrusted to him for delivery and he was a witness to the said incident. 11. According to PW5, who was another postman attached to the Eroor Post Office on 5.5.2009 at around 11 am, while he was sorting out the mail, he heard an altercation between the postmaster and the accused, over the delivery of a letter. He has further testified that accused tore up the postal article and put it in a waste basket. 12. PW7, who was another postwoman attached to the Eroor Post Office testified that a letter addressed to one 'Mr.Krishnakumar, Karuvelil House' received in the said post office on 29.4.2009 was assigned to her for delivery; that since the addressee was not in her beat, she returned the letter to the delivery clerk, namely PW3, Sasidharan. When PW3 entrusted the letter to the accused, who was in charge of beat No.6, accused tore up the said letter. When PW3 entrusted the letter to the accused, who was in charge of beat No.6, accused tore up the said letter. 13. PW1, who was the then Postal Inspector, Postal Sub Division, Tripunithura testified that as per the direction of the Senior Superintendent, Ernakulam, he conducted an enquiry regarding the incident which happened in Eroor Post Office on 5.5.2009; that he visited the post office in June 2009 and verified Ext.P6 error book and Ext.P3 produced by the postmaster. According to him, as per Ext.P3, the letter handed over to the accused for delivery was tore up by the accused; that the torn letter was kept by the postmaster for safe custody was seized. It was a letter addressed to one K.B.Krishnakumar, Karuvelil House. According to PW1, the enquiry conducted by him revealed that the accused tore off the letter. Accordingly, he reported the matter to the office of the Superintendent and as per the direction received from the Superintendent, he lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the Hill Palace Police Station. He identified Ext.P2 series as the letter tore off by the accused, which he handed over to the investigating officer. 14. The evidence on record would show that on 5.5.2009 when a letter addressed to one ‘Mr.K.B.Krishnakumar, Karuvelil House’ was entrusted to the accused for delivery he refused to do so and instead he tore up the same and put it into the waste basket. The version given by PWs 2 to 7 would show that initially the said letter was entrusted to PW7, who was in charge of beat No.5 for delivery. Subsequently, since the addressee comes within beat No.6, on 5.5.2009 the said letter was entrusted to the accused; but the accused objected to the same and he tore up the letter and thus destroyed it. 15. The evidence of PWs 2 to 7 are consistent and it mutually corroborate each other in material particulars and there are no reasons at all to disbelieve their version that the accused tore up the letter entrusted to him. 16. The evidence on record would show that the letter which was tore up by the accused was a letter addressed to PW6 'K.B.Krishnakumar, Karuvelil House’ which was an intimation regarding insurance premium by the Reliance Insurance Company. 17. Accused who was examined as DW1 has admitted that on 5.5.2009 the Postal Assistant Sasidharan, namely PW3 entrusted the letter to him. The evidence on record would show that the letter which was tore up by the accused was a letter addressed to PW6 'K.B.Krishnakumar, Karuvelil House’ which was an intimation regarding insurance premium by the Reliance Insurance Company. 17. Accused who was examined as DW1 has admitted that on 5.5.2009 the Postal Assistant Sasidharan, namely PW3 entrusted the letter to him. According to him, as there was no endorsement regarding delay, he demanded PW3 and PW2 to make necessary endorsement regarding delay. But, they did not make any endorsement. Accordingly, he placed the said letter on the table of PW2. 18. Though the accused would contend that it was a false case foisted against him, he failed to establish that his colleagues or superiors have had any axe to grind against him so as to implicate in a case like this. 19. The learned counsel for the accused contended that there was enormous delay in laying the complaint; that though the incident allegedly occurred on 5.5.2009, Ext.P1 complaint was laid only on 26.6.2009 and the said delay in lodging the complaint would show that the complaint was lodged to wreak vengeance against him. 20. PW1 has testified that the decision to file the police complaint was taken after conducting the departmental enquiry. Therefore, the mere fact that there was delay in lodging Ext.P1 complaint does not affect the credibility of the prosecution case. 21. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused was that PW1 was not authorized to file the complaint and therefore, the prosecution against the accused based on a complaint lodged by an officer who was not competent to file a complaint is bad in law. 22. Section 72 of the Post Office Act, 1898 reads as under: “72. Authority for prosecutions under certain sections of Act .-No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under any of the provisions of sections 51, 53, 54, clauses (a) and (b), 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 64, 65, 66 and 67 of this Act, unless upon complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the Director General or a Post Master General.” 23. Section 52 of the Post Office Act, 1898 reads as under: “52. Penalty for theft, dishonest misappropriation, secretion, destruction, or throwing away, of postal articles. Section 52 of the Post Office Act, 1898 reads as under: “52. Penalty for theft, dishonest misappropriation, secretion, destruction, or throwing away, of postal articles. -Whoever, being an officer of the Post Office, commits theft in respect of, or dishonestly misappropriates, or, for any purpose whatsoever, secretes, destroys or throws away, any postal article in course of transmission by post or anything contained therein, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be punishable with fine.” 24. Section 72 of the Indian Post Office Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under any of the provisions of Sections 51, 53, 54, clauses (a) and (b), 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 64, 65, 66 and 67 of this Act, unless upon complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the Director General or a Post Master General. 25. Section 72 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 exempt the offence punishable under Section 52 of the Act from its purview. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that since there was no authorisation as prescribed under Section 72 of the Post Office Act, the prosecution against the accused is bad in law, is untenable. Prosecution has succeeded in establishing that on 5.5.2009 the accused who was working as Gramin Dak Sevak at Eroor Post Office tore up a postal article addressed to PW6 K.B.Krishnakumar, Karuvelil House which was entrusted to the accused for delivery and thus destroyed the article and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act. 26. The trial court and the appellate court have analysed the evidence in its correct perspective and I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction against the accused for the offence under Section 52 of the Post Office Act. 27. The next aspect for consideration is whether the sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court. 28. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the accused; that he is a disciplined employee in the postal department and is a first-time offender. 27. The next aspect for consideration is whether the sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court. 28. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the accused; that he is a disciplined employee in the postal department and is a first-time offender. The learned counsel for the accused pleaded leniency in the matter of sentence on the ground that he is the sole breadwinner of his family consisting of his wife, unmarried daughter aged 24 and aged parents and therefore the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be extended to the accused who is a first time offender. The learned counsel for the accused also submitted that if the accused is sent to jail and incarcerated, for an incident which took place 17 years ago in a spur of the moment, his whole family, consisting of his aged parents, wife and unmarried daughter, would suffer. 29. The learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute the fact that accused is a first-time offender and he was not previously convicted in any other case. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the facts and attending circumstances and the character of the accused, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to the accused. 30. During the pendency of this revision, this Court had called for a report from the District Probation Officer, Ernakulam. 31. Accused is a first-time offender and he has no previous conviction or criminal antecedents. 32. In Sitaram Paswan and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 2005 SC 3534 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “For exercising the power which is discretionary, the Court has to consider circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of the offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. While considering the nature of the offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. The benefit available to the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is subject to the limitation embodied in the provisions and the word "may" clearly indicates that the discretion vests with the Court whether to release the offender in exercise of the powers under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act having regard to the nature of the offence and the character of the offender and overall circumstances of the case. The powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act vest with the Court when any person is found guilty of the offence committed, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This power can be exercised by the Courts while finding the person guilty and if the Court thinks that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, benefit should be extended to the accused, the power can be exercised by the Court even at the appellate or revisional stage and also by this Court while hearing appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” 33. In Rattan Lal Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1965 SC 444 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: “The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.” 34. Having regard to the facts and attending circumstances of this case and regard being had to the fact that revision petitioner/accused is a first offender who has no previous conviction or criminal antecedents and taking into account the report received from the District Probation Officer, I find that this is a fit case wherein the revision petitioner/accused can be released on probation of good conduct in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 4 , 5 and 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 . 35. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 52 of the Post Office Act, 1898 the accused is released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 subject to the following conditions: a) The revision petitioner/accused is released on probation of good conduct and he shall appear before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam on or before 30.4.2025 and shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of one year from the said date and in the meantime to keep peace and of good behaviour. b) Accused shall deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam towards compensation payable to PW6 Krishna Kumar as provided under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 . If the compensation is not paid, it can be realised as fine, as provided under Section 5 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 . Upon deposit of the compensation amount, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall release the amount to PW6 Krishna Kumar. Criminal Revision Petition allowed in part modifying the sentence alone. Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith