DEVI RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment, dated 19.4.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide which he upheld the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur, dated 11.1.1996, holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed under Section 408 of the IPC. However, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court of simple imprisonment for three years was modified to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was a salesman in Swahan Cooperative Society, District Bilaspur, in between 1.7.1990 to 30.6.1991. During the course of his employment as a salesman, the petitioner used to receive the supply of various items like sugar, palmolene oil, urea fertilizer etc. and after the sale, the sale proceeds used to be deposited with PW -2 Ranjit Singh, the then Secretary of the Society. In October, 1990, the audit of the Society was conducted by Auditor PW -9 Amar Nath, who found that the petitioner had failed to deposit the sale proceeds of the above items amounting to Rs.46,461.22P. The audit report Ext.PW -1/G was prepared which was sent to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies PW -1 B.D. Grower, who lodged a complaint with the police, vide report Ext.PW -1/D on the basis of the resolutions Exts.PW -1/A, PW -1/B and PW -1/C. On the basis of the report, the FIR was registered. During the investigation, the police took into possession the record, got the specimen signatures of the petitioner for comparison with questioned documents and on receipt of the opinion of the hand writing expert Ext.PW -11/N that these entries in the relevant record were in the hand of the petitioner, a prima facie case was made out and the challan was filed before the learned trial Court for offence punishable under Section 408 of the IPC. The learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him, which sentence was modified by the learned Appellate Court, as detailed above.

(3.) THE findings of the learned trial court holding the appellant guilty under Section 408 of the IPC, which findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, have not been challenged before this Court in the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Even in the grounds of petition, no such plea was taken and, therefore, it is clear that the findings of the learned trial Court holding the petitioner guilty under Section 408 of the IPC and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court after due appraisal of the evidence are liable to be affirmed. It may be pointed out that during the course of trial before the learned trial Court, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner had admitted that he was the salesman of the Society and he had misappropriated the amount so found by the Auditor in his report and, therefore, the evidence in this regard does not need to be referred again. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself that during the inquiry proceedings also, the petitioner had admitted his liability to pay the amount.