RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial Court but on an appeal having been preferred by the State, came to be convicted for the offence under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25, 000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

(2.) M/S R.K. Trade Linkers had been dealing in Paints and had various branches including the one at Gagret. PW-3 Pawan Kumar, complainant and PW-4 Dhan Raj had been working therein, whereas PW-2 Surinder Mohan had been working as Manager at Jalandhar. The petitioner was appointed as Salesman by PW-2 on 6.9.2002 as per appointment letter Ext.PW-2/A. PW-2 had issued reference Ext. PW-2/B in favour of the petitioner, which had been duly signed by him. The Gagret office of the Company was to remit funds to its Jalandhar office on 28.9.200 PW-3 had handed over a sum of Rs. 70, 760/- to the petitioner vide receipt Ext. PW-4/A with the direction to deposit this amount with PW- However, the petitioner did not do so. Thereafter, PW-2 and PW-3 looked for the petitioner, who was eventually traced at his house at Hoshiarpur. When interrogated about the funds entrusted to him, the petitioner had stated that he had lost the same in gambling. On these allegations, PW-3 instituted a complaint Ext.PW-3/A against the petitioner on 3.10.2002 at Police Station, Gagret. Crime under Section 408 IPC stood registered against the petitioner, vide FIR Ext.PW-6/A. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency collected the service record of the petitioner and receipt Ext. PW-4/A. The petitioner was directed to furnish his specimen signatures for comparison with questioned signatures on receipt Ext.PW-4/A. The Government Examiner of Questioned Documents as per report Ext. PA had reported that the petitioner had executed receipt Ext.PW-4/A. However, the Investigating Agency could not recover the funds alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned trial Court and copy thereof supplied to the petitioner.

(3.) After hearing both the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, vide order dated 7.2006 framed charge against the petitioner under Section 408 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.