RAGHUNATH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In relation to the commission of the offence under Section 409 and 420 of IPC, for an incident of embezzlement of a public money, which has chanced between 25.04.1979 till 1991, an FIR was registered, being Case Crime No. 37 of 1991 at Police Station Chamoli, District Chamoli, as against the revisionist, who was a named accused in the said FIR, which finds place on record as exhibit ka 51. In the said FIR it was alleged that the revisionist by interpolating official documents and by making illegal encashment from bank account, has embezzled a public money to the tune of Rs. 1,65,945.50 of the State.

(2.) As per the set of allegations leveled by the prosecution and particularly in the FIR, which has been registered by the General Manager of District Industrial Centre Chamoli on 01.11.1991, the allegation, which has been leveled therein is that the revisionist herein after being appointed with the respondents as Pravidhik Sahayak (Smith) as back as on 25.04.1979. Later on, he was granted promotion to the post of Foreman and was put into the scale of 1400 to 2300. In accordance with the office reports when he was holding the post as a Foreman after his promotion, he was required to shoulder with the responsibility of dealing with the various semi-government and government departments, with the sale of iron equipments, which were prepared by the District Industrial Center by selling it to the various organizations, Government departments and even to the individuals and as a Foreman whatever sale proceeds was received by him, in whatever form cash or cheque or by any other instrument was required to be deposited by him in the State Treasury. It was alleged that the revisionist has received an amount of Rs. 35,000/- through draft from District Informal Education Officer, but instead of depositing it in treasury the same was encashed by him from the State Bank on 25.05.1991. The department vide its letter dated 15.07.1991 called an explanation and proof of the deposit from the revisionist. The said notice was refused to be accepted by the revisionist as per the service report. Later on, he deposited the same amount in the accounts of department on 13.08.1991. Further that in a special audit, which was conducted from 08.08.1991 till 16.08.1991 in the Regional Industrial Office, Pauri, and on scrutinizing the account sheets and account statements prepared in the department the audit team has reported that during the tenure from April, 1986 to July, 1991 when the revisionist was working as a Foreman and was dealing with the iron equipment, which was manufactured by the District Industry Center and its sale to the various Government and Non-Government organization, he was also entrusted with the equivalent responsibility of receiving/collecting the sale proceeds the money, which was in turn required to be deposited by him into the accounts of the department or in the treasury of the State, but the set of allegations, which have been leveled therein in the FIR, it was to the effect that there had been number of occasions when the revisionist has collected the money from various Government and Non-Government departments including the private individuals too and instead of depositing the same into the State coffers he has misutilized the same by getting it encashed and utilizing it for his own need. Thus, allegation leveled was that he has conducted himself with irregularities by misusing the State money for his personal use and at time the accounting details were not even received in the accounting books of the department.

(3.) In pursuance to the FIR in question, which was registered on 01.11.1991 as Case Criminal No. 37 of 1991 the investigation was conducted and as a consequence of the culmination of the investigation it has revealed that the Investigating Officer has examined as many as seventeen witnesses in support of the set of allegations leveled against the present revisionist during the investigation and a chargesheet being Charge Sheet No. 10 of 1992 dated 28.04.1992, the same was submitted before the Magistrate concerned on 28.09.1994. Even as per the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, in the chargesheet after examining of the aforesaid witnesses, it was prima-facie found that the revisionist though was the recipient of the public money from various sources, but the evidence, which has been brought on record before the Investigating Officer and which was also proved before the Investigating Officer by the officials of the department as well as the other Government department from where the money was collected, it showed that for the aforesaid period from 1986 to 1991 a total amount of approximately Rs. 1,65,945.50/- was a total amount, which was apparently found to have been embezzelled by the revisionist by not depositing the same in the State treasury, despite of having received the same from various sources. Consequently, the said chargesheet (exhibit ka 57) as submitted by the Investigating Officer based on which the cognizance was taken by the Court of Chief Judicial on 21.03.1996 for the commencement of the trial to be tried by the Magistrate concerned, the said chargesheet dated 28.09.1994 was placed on record before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, which finds place on record of trial as exhibit ka 51.