BISHAN DASS Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Criminal Revision under Sec. 439 r/w Sec. 561-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the Code") has been preferred by petitioner/convict against the judgment/order dtd. 27/8/2002 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class) Katra and the judgment/order dtd. 20/9/2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Reasi, whereby, petitioner/convict has been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sec. 409 RPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000.00, and in default of payment of fine, petitioner/convict has been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) Being aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments, petitioner has questioned their legality, proprietary and correctness and has sought their setting aside on the following grounds:-

(3.) Sh. Suraj Singh, Ld. GA appearing for the respondents, has sought the confirmation of the impugned judgments of conviction by canvassing arguments, that the prosecution has examined as many as eight (8) witnesses out of listed ten (10), the evidence brought on record by the prosecution during the course of trial is cogent, convincing and is reliable as all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution regarding the entrustment of amount misappropriated by the petitioner/accused. It is argued, that the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution has convincingly proved that the petitioner who was working as Cashier in the J&K Bank Branch Katra at the relevant time of occurrence of 15/11/1989 received Rs.27136.00vide receipt No.71 dtd. 2/4/1991 and Rs.16601.00 vide receipt No.30 dtd. 12/4/1991 from Shrine Board and did not credit the said amount into the account No. 1804 of Shrine Board, and instead dishonestly misappropriated the same, thus, the charge for the offence under Sec. 409 RPC is proved against the petitioner/convict beyond any reasonable doubt. It is moreso argued, that petitioner/convict has been rightly convicted by the trial court of Ld. Sub-Judge (JMIC) Katra vide impugned judgment dtd. 17/8/2002 which has been rightly upheld by the appellate court of Ld. Sessions Judge Reasi vide impugned judgment dtd. 20/9/2008.