HAOBIJAM CHAOYAINA SINGH Vs. HEISNAM MANGI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision on behalf of Haobijam Chaoyalma Singh, convict against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur, dated 29.7.1955 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1955 by which conviction of the petitioner dated 19.7.1955 and sentence of 2 months' R. I. imposed on him under Section 403, I. P. C. in Criminal Case No. 687 of 1954 of the Court of Senior Extra Assistant Commissioner, were upheld.

(2.) IT appears that the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 made a complaint on 29.12.1954 against (1) Hairemban Koireng Singh (2) Oinam Dhwajh Singh and (3) Haobijan Chaoyaima Singh, the present petitioner under Section 419, I. P. C., for alleged misappropriation of pecuniary help given by the Government for distribution to the workers of Thanga people who had helped the construction of the road from Sendra to Noirang. According to the complainants (opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2) about 700 prajas of Thanga constructed a new road known as Thanga Road, and when the construction of the said road was in progress from Sendra to Noirang, the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur, Principal Engineer and the Adviser in charge of Land Settlement, Manipur, visited the place and they were glad to find the work done, and the Deputy Commissioner promised to afford pecuniary help to the workers for the work already performed, and he also promised to take over the said road by the Government. Shri Y. Tombi Singh, Executive Engineer, P. W. 3, gave a cheque of Rs. 3,000/ - to Mairembam Koireng Singh accused No. 1 and the complainants believed, that out of this sum Rs. 750/ - were meant for Thanga public and this sum was misappropriated by the present petitioner. The learned Magistrate who tried this case discharged the accused No. 1 on 19.7.1955 and the accused No. 2 was also discharged on the same date, but the present petitioner (accused No. 3) was convicted on the ground that he pleaded guilty. An appeal was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur, but it was rejected on the ground that no appeal was maintainable under Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has now come to this Court in revision.

(3.) TWO points have been urged in this revision. The first contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the present case could not proceed in view of the provisions of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, which runs as follows :