KARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant challenges his conviction for offences under Section 409 IPC and Section 13(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was charged for the said offences along with offences under Sections 465, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted under these three Sections but convicted under Sections 409 IPC and 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_601_TLHPH0_2013_1.html</FRM>

(2.) A number of submissions have been made before me with respect to the legality of the findings of the learned trial Court. I do not intend to go into the merits of the case for the reason that I find that in the thicket of evidence has been confused without there being any link to establish the amount embezzled/misappropriated by the appellant. The learned Judge goes into the details of comparing the signatures of the appellant with the receipt(s) issued by him without in any manner considering and reconciling the amount with the deposits made. I find that the cashier of the Municipal Corporation has died and the chain of evidence is confused and uncertain. It is in these circumstances I intend to send back the case for re-trial.

(3.) In V. Srinivasa Reddy vs. State of A.P., 1998 9 SCC 331 the Supreme Court holds:-