CHUNI LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHUNI Lal, Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment, dated 31.12.2007, rendered by Special Judge, Chamba, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced as follows:

(2.) A report, under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the police against the present Appellant and one Joginder Kumar. The Appellant had been working as Range Officer, Tissa during the years 1989 and 1990. Joginder Kumar, his co -accused, was working as Forest Guard under him. According to the prosecution, Appellant and his co -accused hatched a conspiracy to misappropriate government funds received for nursery and other projects of the forest department by forging receipts and preparing bogus muster -rolls showing engagement of labourers for various purposes. In pursuance of that conspiracy, they prepared bogus muster -rolls, vouchers, bills amounting to Rs. 26436/ - and withdrew the money from government treasury. Chuni Lal at the time of his transfer in August 1989, did not hand over the cash in hand showing a balance in the cash book amounting to Rs. 484.01 to his successor PW 10 Tej Singh. He also did not hand over certain utensils worth Rs. 1495/ - to his successor. He collected a sum of Rs. 62995/ - on account of royalty, Rs. 16156/ -for export permits and Rs. 40113/ - for grazing permits, but deposited the aforesaid amount after a gap of about six months and thus misappropriated these amounts, though temporarily. He also misappropriated temporarily an amount of Rs. 6696/ - drawn for disbursement to the labourers, because the disbursement was made six months after the withdrawal of money from the treasury. Also, he issued 207 T.D. permits without having any legal authority to do so and thus caused loss to the tune of Rs. 57,12,787.60 to the State exchequer. Also, he falsely showed distribution of 20500 broad leave plants worth Rs. 4100/ - to the people of the area and misappropriated the said amount of money by forging papers that those plants had been distributed.

(3.) TRIAL court after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, as also going through the record felt that a prima facie case, under the aforesaid penal provisions of law was made out against the Appellant and his co -accused. They were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty. They were, therefore, put on trial.