SWATI MAINDOLA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.04.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2010, whereby said court has allowed the appeal filed by the State and has affirmed the conviction recorded by the trial court and has enhanced sentence awarded by the trial court. The revisionist has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo six months' additional simple imprisonment.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that complainant Ananda Hotel lodged a First Information Report against the appellant alleging that the appellant was serving as Cashier in Ananda Hotel, Narendnagar and while serving as such, the appellant had to deposit an amount of Rs.16,21,868/- and further 11,400/- U.S. Dollar during the period 1.10.2007 to 15.12.2007 in the account of Ananda Hotel, but instead of depositing the same in Hotel's account, she took advantage and deposited it in her own account.

(3.) The matter was investigated and after completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the revisionist under Section 406 and 420 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri on receipt of the charge sheet, took cognizance and summoned the appellant. After giving necessary copies to the accused, learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Ist Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar Tehri Garhwal, vide order dated 07.03.2009, framed charge of offences punishable under section 406 and 420 IPC, against the revisionist, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined as many as five prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Madan Salgavkar, P.W.2 Milan Sharma, P.W.3 Gabbar Singh, P.W.4 S.I. R.P. Sati and P.W.5 Ramesh Ranjan. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused, which she denied and submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the case. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of record, the trial court (Civil Judge J.D./Ist Judicial Magistrate) vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2010, convicted the revisionist under section 406 I.P.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default to undergo six months' imprisonment. Against the sentence awarded by the trial court, on the ground of its inadequacy, the Public Prosecutor preferred an appeal under Section 377 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) before the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom appeal was transferred, vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2011, maintained the conviction recorded by the trial court but enhanced the sentence of the revisionist, as stated above. Hence, this revision has been filed by the convict-revisionist.