HARBANS LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforementioned Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment and order recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur all dated 28.11.1998 in session File Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

(2.) In Criminal Appeal No. 25/98, accused came to be convicted by the trial court for commission of offence punishable under Section 409 and 467 RPC and came to sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also came to impose fine of Rs. 40, 000/- with a direction that in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment of like nature for a period of one year; for offence under Section 467 RPC, he came to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with the direction that in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. However, both the sentences awarded have been made concurrent. The charge against the accused besides the said offences was also for offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 468 RPC and he has been acquitted for these offences.

(3.) In other appeals detailed above, the accused has been charged for offence punishable for under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 468 RPC and has been acquitted by the trial court by virtue of the judgment impugned therein. The brief facts leading to the charge against the accused are that during the year 1984-87, the accused was serving in the department of Food and Supplies and was posted as salesman at Udhampur. During the audit of the accounts of the Sale Depot by the audit party, it came to be revealed that total amount of Rs. 1,80, 000/- had been embezzled by the accused while working as salesman by making a short deposits of sale proceeds of various food grains such as wheat, flour and sugar etc. into the Government Treasury. Since the embezzlement were claimed to have been made on different occasions, the charges were split so that each challan did not constitute more than three offences of the same nature committed within a period of 12 months, as required under Section 234 of the State Code of Criminal procedure.