LAWS(HPH)-2011-2-88

RAM SWAROOP Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On February 23, 2011
RAM SWAROOP Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner challenges his conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kandaghat as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, as he was convicted for offences under Sections 420, 471 and 120 -B IPC. The Petitioner was the Bank Manager of Punjab National Bank, Sabathu who had been an accused of entering into a conspiracy with other accused to defraud the State of Himachal Pradesh. I need not discuss the facts as the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court have considered the facts in detail. The finding of the learned Magistrate is that in the year 1984 the Petitioner alongwith other accused entered into a conspiracy by preparing forged documents etc. and facilitated the withdrawal of government money for purchase of mules etc. Three points were formulated by the learned trial Court and on all three counts, barring three accused Shri Krishan Dutt, Simal Chand and Dhani Ram, it held the Petitioner as also the other accused guilty of offences as charged.

(2.) THE Petitioner has approached this Court challenging his conviction. A number of points have been urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that offences on record do not stand established. I have been taken through the evidence in detail. It is now well settled that in revisional jurisdiction, it is not open to this Court to re -assess the entire evidence. However, in order to satisfy my judicial conscience, I have gone through the entire evidence with the help of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General. I concur/agree with the judgments passed by the two Courts below and do not find that they suffer from any perversity or that the appreciation of evidence or conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are per se wrong, holding the Petitioner to be guilty of offences as alleged. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

(3.) SINCE the Petitioner is residing at Ambala, it will be in the fitness of things that he reports to the Chief Judicial Magistrate once every six months. The bond be executed within a period of six weeks from today. Petition stands disposed of.