THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. ARUN KUMAR PRIYADARSHI SON OF LATE MUNSHI DAS, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-BHARAOPUR, TOWN BIHARSHARIF POLICE STATION- LAHERI, DISTT- NALANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROSECUTION case initiated on the basis of written report of one Rameshwar Chaudhary, Treasury Officer, in brief, is that on 14.9.1995, two bills were produced by two employees of Nalanda High School, Bari Pahari. One bill and messenger book was produced by accused -respondent Arun Kumar Priyadarshi and another messenger book with bill was produced by Balendra Kumar. As a result of presentation of two bills of a single number with two messenger books of the same school same were inspected by the deputed Assistant of Collectorate, Shivnandan Prasad and informed the Head Assistant of the Treasury. Signature on both the bills of Drawing Officer was found not tallying with each other. School was visited and on verification, it was verified that bill produced by orderly Balendra Kumar was genuine as same was entered in bill book and acquaintance roll while another was not entered in bill book and Acquaintance Roll. Other payments of bill by Arun Kumar Priyadarshi was verified and it was found that total twelve (12) bills were produced by him and money was withdrawn detailed in the first information report. All the twelve (12) bills were not entered either in the bill book or in the Acquaintance Roll. Total amount effected was Rs. three lacs fifty six thousand four hundred seven (Rs. 3,56,407/ -). It is said that all the bills were withdrawn by committing forgery and by cheating. The matter was then informed to the police by filing a written application. Trial concluded in conviction and sentence by Prem Kumar Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, which was challenged by filing Appeal No. 95 of 1999, which was allowed. Accordingly, accused -respondent was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Nalanda, who heard the appeal. Finding of Additional Sessions Judge is challenged by filing this appeal. After perusal of the judgment, it appears that all the disputed points have been discussed by the first Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the State did not succeed to point out any perversity in finding of the Appellate Court, otherwise also accused -respondent sentenced to undergo imprisonment under Section 420 of the I.P.C. for one year with fine of Rs. one thousand, under Section 471 of the I.P.C. for one year with fine of Rs. one thousand and under section 467 of the I.P.C. for two years and nine months with fine of Rs. one thousand. All the sentences were to run concurrently, in default of fine further sentence which was imposed is of three months but accused -respondent remaining in custody for a period of more than three years. It is made clear that he was taken into custody on 12.7.1996 and case was decided by trial Court on 22.10.1999, in appeal only he was given any relief. So, reversal of acquittal may not be resulted for any more sentence to the accused -respondent.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY , this government appeal is dismissed hereby.