BIMAL CHANDRA BHOWMICK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in Special Court Case No. 7 of 1978 in the Court of the Special Judge, Additional Court, Nadia.

(2.) The accused-appellant Bimal Chandra Bhowmick (hereinafter referred to as appellant) stood charged under Section.409 I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced under the said Section. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5ve years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(3.) The case of the prosecution-respondent State of West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as prosecution) is that Sri Tarak Chandra Chakraborty, Circle Inspector, Krishnagar (II) Circle informed the J.L.R.O. on 2.9.76 that the appellant, who was a Tahshildar of Block IV under the said Circle was asked to come to the Once of the J.L.R.O. on 31.8.76 for the purpose of checking of some rent receipts and other receipts books but he did not come. On 1.9.76 he came to draw his monthly salary but did not meet the J.L.R.O. and on the following day J.L.R.O. and the said Circle Inspector went to the house of the appellant at Kamarhati and enquired about the Rent Receipt Books, D.C.R. books and the cash that was in his hand and on some pretexts the appellant avoided that and said that without verification of those books at the Block Office at Belpukur nothing could be said and on 3.9.76 those books were checked and after checking it was found that although the appellant had realised Rs. 21,763.47P. he had not deposited the amount in the Bank as required under the law and this misappropriation was brought to the notice of the police by a complaint an 4.9.76 and investigation was done ultimately by D.E.B., Nadia and as per order of the Government, the case was allotted to the Court of the Special Judge, Additional Court, Nadia and accordingly the complaint of this case was filed and the said Special Court took cognizance of it and after examination of witnesses, charge as stated above was framed by the said Court against the appellant and trial proceeded as he pleaded not guilty to the charge.