SRIDAM REANG @ SIDAM Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the Judgment dated 10.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kailashahar, North Tripura, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner and upheld the Judgment dated 30th March, 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kailashahar, North Tripura, in G.R. Case No. 206/2005 convicting the petitioner of having committed an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and Section 468 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 years in respect of offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for 5 months. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC, the accused was further sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 5 months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story briefly stated is that the petitioner-accused was working as Panchayat Secretary. It is not disputed that a joint CD account was opened by the BDO Chawmanu Rural Development Block and the present petitioner. This account was opened in the Tripura Gramin Bank, Chailengta Branch bearing No. 444. It is also not disputed that a cheque book was issued with regard to the operation of the account. This account was to be jointly operated by the BDO and the present petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that on 30th June, 2005, the BDO handed over a cheque bearing No. 0477328 to the petitioner-accused Sridam Reang and this cheque was made payable in the name of Sridam Reang. The case of the prosecution is that the cheque was issued for Rs. 8,000/- only and the present petitioner added one 0 (zero) at the end of the figures 8000 and the letter y after the word Eight and thereby converted the Rs.8,000/- into Rs. 80,000/- and withdrew a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from the bank. The prosecution led evidence, examined a number of witnesses and both the Courts below after appreciation of evidence have convicted the accused. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) I have heard Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel has raised three points before this Court. She states that the cheque in question was never sent to the hand writing expert or the examiner of questioned documents and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the change in figures was done by the accused. The second submission is that from the bank, the table sheet has not been seized and therefore it is not proved that Rs. 80,000/- was in fact withdrawn by Sridam Reang. Lastly, it is submitted that all the witnesses are subordinates of the BDO and the BDO in connivance with the officials of the bank has made up a false case against the petitioner-accused.