BAIDYANATH KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2013 and 31.05.2013 respectively passed in Special Court Case No. 5/2009 whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 409/467/477 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 4 (four) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - (Ten thousand) and in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sections 409 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months for the combined offences under Sections 467 and 477 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the accused/appellant was charge -sheeted for the aforesaid offences on the premise that when he was working as cashier in the office of Santipur Block Development Office during the period from 03.02.1995 to 31.02.1998 he made entries in the Cash Book as and when he received the Water Taxes amounting to Rs. 14,70,186/ - (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Seventy Thousand & One Hundred Eighty Six) only. Verification of records of Ranaghat Treasury and State Bank of India, Ranaghat Branch, revealed that the said amounts were not remitted in the proper head of account. Thus it was evident that after getting the Treasury Challan passed by the Ranaghat Treasury he fraudulently defalcated the said amounts by fabricating the State Bank of India's receipt on the Challans on different dates of the said period and made entries of the amounts on the basis of the said false and fabricated Challans in the Cash Book maintained in the Block Office. It was further alleged that Ranaghat Treasury and State Bank of India, Ranaghat Branch had issued certificate of remittance for the aforesaid period which go to show that the said amounts were not remitted to the relevant head of account.

(3.) THE Learned Trial Judge on appearance of the accused and on perusal of the materials available on record including the police papers as well as upon hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties framed charge against the accused/appellant under Sections 409/467/477 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who however, pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried.