KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Kuldip Singh (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri dated 29.11.1986 and 6.12.1986 respectively. The petitioner was held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 409/465 and 471, Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigours imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. He was further awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 465/471, Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The revision also assails the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala dated 21.7.1988 confirming the findings of the trial Court.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the case was registered on the letter of Shri Jai Singh, Administrator, Municipal Committee, Chhachhrauli dated 6.3.1982. It had been mentioned that the petitioner was employed in the Municipal Committee, Chhachhrauli as Tehbazari Moharrir. He was also incharge of Central Octroi Barrier during the period January, 1980 to July, 1980. It was his duty to receive rent of municipal buildings, teh bazari fee, octroi tax and other income on behalf of the Municipal Committee. He was to issue the receipts. It had been alleged that during this period the petitioner along with Secretary, Avtar Singh embezzled the municipal funds. The petitioner was issued receipt book Nos. 100 and 1937 and teh bazari ticket books. He tampered with the receipts pertaining to receipt book No. 100 and embezzled an amount of Rs. 864/-. He is also alleged to have tampered with the receipt No. 18/100 dated 19.5.1980. It was issued for Rs. 40/-. It was tampered with Rs. 6/- and Rs. 34/- were embezzled. Similarly, he is asserted to have tampered receipt No. 36/100 dated 10.6.1980 which was issued for an amount of Rs. 260/- and he embezzled Rs. 130/-. Similarly, he tampered with receipt No. 37/100. He charged Rs. 840/- and deposited Rs. 140/- only. Furthermore, it is asserted that receipt No. 38/100 was found missing from receipt book No. 100 and that he had torn eight teh bazari tickets. These facts came to notice when depositors attended the office of the Municipal Committee to deposit the amount for the subsequent period.

(3.) BOTH the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that it is established that the petitioner had committed the above said offences and the impugned judgments and the order of sentence followed.