VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an accused in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 12/2016, under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The FIR against him has been registered at the instance of one Jaisi Ram, President of Karyali Krishi Sewa Sehkari Sabha Samiti, District Hamirpur. The allegation in a nut shell are that while working as Secretary-cum-Sales man of the Society, he embezzled a sum of Rs. 34,80,554.76/-. The embezzlement of the amount in question by him came in light during the audit of the amount of the Society for the years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 conducted on the direction of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, District Hamirpur. In the affidavit, he sworn in and available on record, he has admitted this amount having been embezzled by him during his period as Secretary-cum-sales man of the Society. The investigation further reveals that a sum of Rs. 4,69,000/- has already been deposited by him in the accounts of the Society.

(3.) The documentary evidence collected by the investigating agency, prima-facie, reveal that the petitioner-accused has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 37,13,743.75/- of the Society and out of it, he has deposited a sum of Rs. 4,69,000/- in the accounts of the Society. In this way the balance amount he embezzled is Rs. 32,44,743.75/- and this Court feel that the petitioner-accused alone could have not embezzled such a huge amount as learned Counsel representing him submits. This Court has been informed that the petitioner-accused during the course of his interrogation has not divulged anything qua the manner in which he has committed the offence and has rather denied the commission of offence by him. The affidavit, he sworn in and taken on record by the police rather, primafacie, reveals that he is involved in the commission of the offence. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances and also the gravity of the offence the petitioner-accused allegedly committed, he is not entitled to any relief in this application. The investigating agency is required to investigate the case extensively and vigorously so that the truth to come out. The present is, therefore, a case where the custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is required.