RAMESHWAR PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) in FIR No. 76 dtd. 20/4/2002, registered at Police Station Ropar. Trial Court vide judgment/order dtd. 29/7/2008 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sec. 409 IPC. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of his conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dtd. 31/8/2009. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

(2.) FIR in question was ordered to be registered against the petitioner on the complaint dtd. 12/4/2000 made by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar. The contents of the complaint were that the petitioner was working as Naib Nazir, Malkhana and had joined his duty on 15/2/1996. The petitioner was entrusted with the case properties of the cases pending in various Courts and his duty was to maintain the case properties in his custody under lock and key and to produce the same in the Court where the relevant cases were pending. It was alleged that in case State v. Daljit Singh etc., FIR No. 31 dtd. 13/6/1998, registered under Ss. 124-A, 153-A and 120-B IPC, Police Station Sohana, two wireless sets were deposited with petitioner-Rameshwar Parshad, Naib Nazir, Malkhana (Judicial) on 1/8/1998 and entry in this regard was made by him at Sr. No. 3 dtd. 1/11/1998 and the same was countersigned by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar. The said case property was required, during trial, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar. An application dtd. 10/1/2002 was moved to the Court that the case property i.e. wireless sets were deposited in the Judicial Malkhana Ropar and direction was sought from the Court to produce the case property.

(3.) Accordingly, on 10/1/2002 Additional Sessions Judge passed the order issuing directions to the complainant to arrange the production of the case property in the Court and order was also made to the petitioner to produce the wireless sets in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar. The petitioner reported that the auction was held and the case properties were lying out of order in a haphazard manner and he was trying to find out the same and his co-worker Sanjiv Negi was not present on his seat and the case property will be searched and later on it will be produced in the Court. But neither the said wireless sets were found nor produced in the Court.