ATMA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the orders of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of l986rdated January 5, 1987.

(2.) The accused revisional-petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 408/467 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case of the protection the accused was working as an Accountant-cum-Cashier in, Hafed Rice Sheller, Samalkha from 18.9.1978 to 12.4.1979 and thereafter, his services were terminated. Before handing over the charge, he has with drawn an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the purpose of depositing the same in Karnal Central Cooperative Bank at Samalkha but he did not make the deposit in the said Bank and thereby misappropriated the same. Accordingly, a complaint was given against the accused-petitioner. The police registered the case vide FIR No.134 datell.9.1979 against the accused-petitioner under Sections 408, 467 and 471, IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge-sheet against the accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat has taken cognizance of the case against the accused in Case No. 312/2 of 1980. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and marked them as PW 1 to PW 19. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him thereunder and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, the accused preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 408 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred the above referred revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 9.4.1979 and therefore, there was no question of the petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the Hafed Rice Sheller for the purpose of depositing it in the Karnal Central Cooperative Bank and he has been implicated in this case. I have gone through the judgments of both, the Court below and the material placed by the prosecution. I do not find any ground warranting any interference in the conviction, but the offence is said to have been committed in 1979 i.e. more than is years back. The accused also deposited the amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the month of August, 1979 i.e. within four months from the date of the alleged misappropriation. The accused has also been in jail for some time. It is brought to my notice that the accused has already paid the fine amount. In these circumstances and in view of the lapse of time I do not think it desirable to send the accused to jail. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of while confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence to the period of already undergone. Revision disposed of accordingly.