RABINDRA KUMAR MAHALICK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's conviction under S.408, I.P.C. and sentence to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months more having been confirmed in appeal he has preferred this revision. The facts of the prosecution case briefly narrated are that during the period from 17-5-76 to 26-6-76 the petitioner was working as a Clerk-B in the office of the S.D.O. (Electrical), Jharsuguda and was In charge of receiving cash collections from the bill collectors, but had not deposited an amount of Rs. 20,262.51 collected during the period and hence faced the charge for which he stood trial

(2.) The sole contention raised by Mr. B. Nayak, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, assailing the conviction is that on the facts adduced in evidence by the prosecution itself, no misappropriation against the petitioner had been made out and hence his conviction has to be set aside.

(3.) The F.I.R. against the petitioner was lodged by the S.D.O. (Electricals) on the allegation that during the period the petitioner had not deposited Rs. 20,262.51 and after investigation chargesheet was submitted alleging that during the period a total sum of Rs. 36,275.17 collected by the bill collectors had been entrusted to the petitioner and out of such amount he had misappropriated Rs. 20,251.28. On perusal of papers, charge was framed against the petitioner of his having been entrusted with an amount of Rs. 36,275.17 of which a sum of Rs. 16,012.66 had been accounted for and that the petitioner had committed misappropriation in respect of Rs. 20,262.51.