VISHWA NATHI Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused who happened to be a Head Constable was tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ram Nagar on a charge under Section 409, R. P. C. The Judicial Magistrate by his judgment dated 15th December, 1973 held that the charge against the accused had been established and he convicted the accused under Section 409, R. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Against the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate the accused filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Udhampur. The Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 26th April, 1974 upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The accused filed a revision application in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and the High Court by its judgment and order dated 28th November, 1974 dismissed the said petition. With Special Leave granted by this Court, the accused has filed this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows:The accused, the appellant before us, was entrusted as incharge Courty Ramnagar on 7th February, 1972 with Government money of Rs. 619/-. As a public servant entrusted with Government money, the accused was required to deposit the amount forthwith in accordance with law. The accused did not deposit the money and had used the same for personal purposes. When it was later found out that there had been defalcation of the amount by the accused, he deposited this money through one Dharam Dutt, A. S. I. on 8th August, 1972. There was thus an embezzlement of the said amount entrusted to the accused by him.

(3.) The main defence taken by the accused at the trial was that as there had been a case of embezzlement in Udhampur he had been asked by one Anchal Singh not to send the money. Anchal Singh has been examined as a witness and had falsified the explanation given by the accused. The Judicial Magistrate and also the Sessions Judge have both carefully considered the facts and circumstances and have analysed the evidence on record. They have both come to the conclusion that there had been embezzlement of Government money by the accused who had used the Government money for his personal use. This finding has been accepted by the High Court.