MOHD IQBAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order dated March 22, 1972, of the learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 409 R. P. C. recorded by the City Magistrate, Srinagar, vide his order dated October 18, 1972, as also the sentence of one months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 imposed thereunder on the petitioner.

(2.) THE charge against the petitioner was that in his capacity as the Criminal Clerk attached to the Court of the Second Addl. Munsiff Magistrate, Srinagar, from September 5, 1968, to July 20, 1970, he was entrusted with fines totalling Rs. 3,054 which he failed to deposit in time with the Nazir, that on his transfer from the Court of the Second Addl. Munsiff Magistrate 1st Class, Srinagar, to the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate, Srinagar, on July 20, 1970, he Was asked to hand own charge to his successor, Mushtaq Ahmad, that despite several requests made to him by his successor he did not hand over complete charge to his successor whereupon the matter was vide Ex. PI. brought to the notice of the aforesaid Magistrate, who sent for him after obtaining a report, from the Nazir and asked him to hand over complete charge as also the fines realized by him to Mushtaq Ahmad that thereupon the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,300 on July 29, 1970, that as the petitioner did not deposit the balance nor did he give satisfactory explanation for his failure to do so, the matter was brought to the notice of the higher authorities who reported the matter to the police whereupon investigation was started, during the course of which the balance of Rs. 1,754 was produced by the petitioner on January 18, 1971. After completion of the usual investigation the petitioner was proceeded against in the Court of the City Magistrate, Srinagar, who convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) APPEARING in support of the revision petition Mr. N. K. Ganjoo, has contended that there is no material on the record to establish the entrustment of fines to the petitioner, that the petitioner had no criminal intention and that mere retention of money does not constitute any offence. The learned counsel has further urged that great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. has not been recorded in conformity with the requirements of law.