BANSI LAL ZIJOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction/order of sentence dtd. 31/7/2003 and 1/8/2003 respectively passed by the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in the case, titled State through CBI vs. Bansi Lal Zijoo in FIR No.05/1987 under Ss. 409, 471, 467 and 477-A of Ranbir Penal Code, by virue of which he has been sentenced under Sec. 409 RPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.9000.00, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; sentenced under Sec. 467 RPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.9000.00, in default of payment of fine, he shal1 have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; sentenced under Sec. 471 RPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.9000.00, in default of payment of fine convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; and sentenced under Sec. 477-A RPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year only. Court below has further held that sentence/punishment awarded to appellant shal1 run consecutively i.e one after the other. Out of amount of fine awardad to the offender/convict, Rs.26,500.00 shall be deposited/ paid to the bank concerned and Rs.500.00 shall be deposited in Govt. Treasury.

(2.) The impugned judgment/order dtd. 31/7/2003/1/8/2003 respectively have been assailed by the appellant in the instant appeal, on various ground including that there is no evidence that appellant has converted the money for his use at relevant time; that important witnesses have not been examined; that appellant has been involved in a false and concocted case; that court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. That specimen signature of appellant has not been taken before Magistrate, so conviction cannot be based.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions. The counsel for appellant has reiterated the grounds taken in memo of appeal; whereas counsel for respondant has supported the judgment of conviction.