SURESH TOLANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 30-11-2000 by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Police Establishment Cases), Jaipur District, Jaipur who had convicted the petitioner for offences u/Ss. 409 and 477-A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonmen with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for offence u/S. 409, IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default, to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for offence u/S. 477-A, IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for C.B.I.

(3.) Accused petitioner was working as a higher grade Assistant in the Transport Nagar Branch of the Life Insurance Corporation in the year 1989 to 1991. It is alleged that Shashi Shekhar Dave, Gurdayal Singh and Iqbal Singh obtained LIC policies in the year 1990 and the instalment of those policies with regard to the year 1991 was not deposited in the month of February or March. Necessary notices were sent to them. The case of the prosecution is that Iqbal Singh deposited the amount of premium and obtained receipt Ex. P. 1. However, some receipts pertaining to premia were missing as per the audit report and, therefore, a preliminary enquiry was held. It was alleged that the premium amount was paid by the above said policy holders but the same was not entered in the cash book and other registers and was misappropriated by the accused petitioner. Consequently, a case u/Ss. 409 and 477-A, IPC was registered against the petitioner and after investigation, chargesheet was submitted in relation to the policy amount of Shri Iqbal Singh which was Rs. 2546.50 including the penalty and with regard to the rest remaining two policies the receips could be traced out and consequently their mater was dropped. The learned Magistrate framed charge under the said sections agains the petitioner vide order dated 2-1-94 who denied his indictment and then prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of is case. Then accused peitioner was examined u/S. 313, Cr. P.C. He did not produce any winess in defence. Learned Magistrate after hearing both the paries convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as stated above. On appeal, the said convicion and sentences were maintained.