SARDOOL SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case briefly are as under :

(2.) THE prosecution examined a number of witnesses. In his examination under section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner stated that he was employed as a Cashier and Manager of the said Society and also kept its record. He also admitted that he had resigned on 28th March, 1960, and on that day he had Rs. 4248/ -/3, which he had paid to Gurdip Singh P.W. and the remaining amount was with Sohan Lal Munim which was to be paid to the President of the Society after getting this amount from Sohan Lal. He further admitted that Rs. 1051/10/3 of the Society were with him but that amount was left by him with Sohan Lal Munim and after taking the same from him the petitioner paid it to the Sub Committee. The petitioner called Arjan Singh, Sohan Singh and Gurdip Singh D.Ws. in defence and then closed his case. The petitioner was convicted for temporary embezzlement of Rs. 1051/10/3.

(3.) THE last point urged by the petitioner's counsel was that after the examination of the Court witnesses in this case the petitioner had not been re -examined. But it is not obligatory for the Court to do so and in any case this commission only amounts to an irregularity, which does not vitiate the trial. In this connection see Kandhai v. Municipal Board, Rae Bareli, (1938) 39 C. L. J. 841. Such authority can be multiplied -Fazal Karim v. Emperor : A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 154, Pai Mohomed and others v. Emperor : A.I.R. 1926 Nag 348, Sheoram Idan Sonar and others v. Emperor : A.I.R. 1937 Nag. 285, Mahadu Raghavji Thakkar v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1928 Bom. 388. The revision, therefore, stands dismissed.