NAND KUMAR TAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Nand Kumar Tayal and Ved Prakash petitioners. Nand Kumar stands convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default further simple imprisonment for six months, under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code while Ved Parkash stands convicted under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and has been released on probation.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Nand Kumar petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in P.W.D. and was posted at Ballabgarh. He was in charge of the P.W.D. I.B. Store, Ballabgarh, while Ved Parkash petitioner is a resident of Ballabgarh. On 7th August, 1979, at (?) a.m. Ved Parkash petitioner brought the cart of Nand Lal PW to the store. They met Nand Kumar petitioner there, Jagat Bahadur Chowkidar and Harpal PWs were also present at the store. Scrap from that store was loaded on the cart of Nand Lal PW. While they were taking the cart to the dharmkanta on G.T. Road, Ballabgarh, for wheighment the cart was intercepted by Sub-Inspector Nafe Singh PW7. He recorded the statement of Nand Lal PW. On the basis of the same, formal first information report Exhibit PA/1 was registered.

(3.) NAND Lal, the first informant, deposed that both the petitioners came to his house told him that the goods were to be weighed and taken back to the store. So, he took his cart and loaded the iron bars on it and when he was near the dharmakanda the cart was captured by the police and taken to the police post. This witness never stated that Nand Kumar petitioner told him that the iron bars had been sold to Ved Parkash petitioner. he was declared hostile. Similarly, Jagat Bahadur Chowkidar PW 5 and Har Pal Clerk P.W. 6 stated that the scrap was loaded into the cart for being weighed at the kharmakanda. Both of them were also declared hostile. Thus there is no evidence or record to counter the version as given by the defence. On the other hand, these prosecution witnesses have supported the version as given by the defence. There is no evidence on record to show that the Government property was ever sold to anybody or that any amount was misappropriated by Nand Kumar Tayal petitioner. In the case of this evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the petitioner. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge against them. The fine, if paid, would be refunded to Nand Kumar petitioner. Revision Accepted.