DILBAG SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four identical criminal revision petitions between the same parties, bearing Criminal Revision Nos. 407, 408 and 409 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 317 of 2006, are being decided together vide this common order, as the same are directed against the similar impugned judgments, arising out of the same FIR. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CRR No. 407 of 2006.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in para 2 of his impugned judgment, are that on 16.8.1996, on a letter No. 5269 dated 25.7.1996 moved by Assistant Registrar Co -op. Societies Limited, Kaithal, wherein it was stated that the Development Officer, Haryana State Co -op. Housing Federation Limited Mani Majra vide letter No. 96 -97/124 dated 22.5.1996 informed that as per audit report submitted by the Cheeka Development Officer Building Construction Society Limited, Cheeka for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1995, both the above named appellant -accused misusing their post of Secretary and President misappropriated total amount Rs. 3,49,218.82 paise by hatching conspiracy with each other. In this regard, notices for recovery were issued to both the accused but the same were received being undelivered. Therefore, the Director Haryana State Co -op. Housing Federation Limited recommended for lodging FIR against them. After registration of the case the investigation was handed over to ASI Mohinder Pal and it was completed by ASI Amar Singh. The appellant -accused Dilbag Singh was arrested on 8.12.1996. The investigating officer collected records of societies and recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation the total embezzlement of Rs. 3,49,268.54 paise was found. After completion of investigation the challan for the embezzlement of Rs. 46735.11 paise wrongly shown as Rs. 10,624.69 paise during the year of 1992 -93 was prepared and presented in the court for trial.

(3.) THE prosecution, with a view to prove its case, produced as many as 18 prosecution witnesses, besides placing on record other documentary evidence. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material was put to the accused. They denied the allegations, alleged false implication and claimed complete innocence. The accused opted to lead their evidence but finally they did not lead any defence evidence.