RAM CHANDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.2000 passed by Sessions Judge. Darbhanga, in Cr. Appeal No. 48/98 confirming the judgment dated 29.5.1998 passed, by Judicial Magistrate. Pt Class. Darbhanga, in G.R. Case No. 748/84. Tr. No. 18/98. The revisionist was convicted under Section 409, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. He was also convicted under Section 420, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellate court upheld the entire order of conviction and sentence hence this revision.

(2.) The relevant facts of this case are that the revisionist was informant of the aforesaid case in the trial Court and the case was initiated on the report of the District Animal Husbandry Officer alleging therein that the revisionist was an Accountant in his office and he was messenger of bills to the Treasury. Six bills were presented to the Treasury on 2 1.3.1984 by the revisionist. Five bills were returned to the revisionist on 23.3.1984. The revisionist encashed five bills, but one of the bills bearing No. 258/C-83-84 was not returned to him by the BillClerk of the Treasury. Then he made further enquiry and learnt that this bill was encashed from the Treasury on 22.3.1984 itself. Then the District Animal Husbandry Officer made a written report to the Officer-in-Charge (Ext. 4/2) on the basis of which FIR was drawn up and after investigation, charge-sheet etc. was filed. However, after investigation the police charge-sheeted the revisionist himself and on trial he was convicted by the trial Court.

(3.) It was submitted before me by the revisionistTs lawyer that the messenger book on the basis of which bills are presented before the Treasury was not brought on the record and hence it was not proved that all the six bills were returned to the revisionist and he by withdrawing the cash on the bill in question, misappropriated the amount. The witnesses examined failed to say that the revisionist had received back the bill, in question, from the treasury which he personally encashed and misappropriated the amount.