LIANHNUNI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. C. Prusty, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Joel J. Denga, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 to 9. None appears for and on behalf of private respondent No. 10.

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed for a direction from this Court to the respondents particularly respondent Nos. 1 to 8 to pay her entire sum credited to her GPF Account No. PH (MZ) 1183 along with interest calculated thereon from the time the amount fell due till realization.

(3.) WHEN the petitioner had been to the office of the respondent No. 6 to draw her GPF amount, it came to be discovered that her entire sum of Rs. 1,11,151/- had been withdrawn by some unknown person (s) on 3rd November, 1999 by forging her signature. On account of illegal withdrawal of her GPF amount petitioner persuade the matter and ran from pillar to post but till date she was unable to recover the GPF amount credited to her GPF Account. Being failed to have her due she had written to the Minister, Rural Development Department, Government of Mizoram requesting intervention in the matter. Respondent No. 3 in the meantime, wrote a letter to the petitioner dated 15th July 2004 expressing their inability to resolve the matter and advised her to approach the Mamit Police Station to file a First Information Report. She accordingly filed an FIR on 25th August, 2004 with the respondent No. 9 stating the facts and accordingly respondent No. 9 registered a case being Mamit Police Station Case No. 89 of 2004 under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Police after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the respondent No. 10, an ex-muster roll employee of the department of Health and Family Welfare for cheating and forgery and using a forged document as genuine. It was came to be known that respondent No. 10 was an ex-muster roll employee was solely responsible for withdrawal of the GPF amount from the petitioner's GPF account. Trial started against respondent No. 10 and ultimately he was convicted but released on probation under Section 360 of the Crpc. Against the judgment and order of the trial Court, revision was filed. The revisional Court dismissed the revision rather upheld judgment of the trial Court.