MUKESH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case in brief is that Mukesh Chander petitioner was cashier of Chhachhrauli Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Chhachhrauli during the period 1.7.1985 to 30.6.1987. In a Special audit conducted by the Senior Auditor, Cooperative Super Bazar Ambala Cantt, for this period on the accounts of the said bank, he was found to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 8,04,000/-. In the audit report submitted, manager and the accountant of the said bank were also indicted by the Senior Auditor to the Manager of the Bank. The Manager of the bank sent complaint dated 24.6.1987 Ex. PW4/A along with Annexure Ex.PW 4/8 to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhari stating that an amount of Rs. 5,78,000/- belonging to the bank had been embezzled by the accused. Details of the embezzlement were incorporated in complaint Ex.PW4/B. He collected more amount from the depositors by way of the recovery of loans but deposited less amount with the Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. He thus misappropriated the amount. Case was registered at PS Chhachhrauli under Section 409 IPC. After investigation, accused Mukesh Chander was challaned.

(2.) MUKESH Chander was charged under Section 409 IPC by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhari vide order dated 3.4.1989. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhari found the accused to have received Rs. 13,25,000/- but deposited Rs. 6,81,000/- in the account of the bank and thus embezzled Rs. 6,44,000/- during the period 7.4.1986 to 6.4.1987. He was convicted under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one year by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhari vide order dated 18/20.3.1997. Mukesh Chander went in appeal to the Court to Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari dismissed the appeal vide order dated 9.12.1998. Aggrieved from the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 9.12.1998, accused has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) I have gone through the judgment of the learned Magistrate. Conclusion of fact arrived at by him is quite sustainable. I have gone through the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and his endorsing the conclusion of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on correct appreciation of evidence. Petitioner was justifiably convicted by the learned Magistrate. His conviction was justifiably maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.