GIRISH SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374, Cr. P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10-8-2001 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 8/2000 by the Special Court (Printing & Stationery Embezzlement Cases), Jaipur whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 409, IPC and for offence under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and has been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 409, IPC and rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Sections 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was charge-sheeted for the above offences on the premise that when he was working as Store Keeper in the office of Directorate (Treasury & Accounts), Rajasthan, Jaipur on 16-6-1989, a demand letter No. 22923 dated 16-6-1989 (Ex. P1) was issued by the Deputy Director (Treasury) for supply of stationery by the Central Govt. Press, Jaipur and appellant was authorised and entrusted to receive and bring that material and invoice No. 447 dated 20-6-1989 (Ex. P2) was issued by the Central Paper Store of the Printing Press on the basis of that demand letter and the stationery mentioned in the invoice was supplied to the appellant but he neither deposited it in the Store of the Directorate (Treasury & Accounts) nor he made entry of that material in the stock register of the office. It was alleged that the appellant as a public servant by misusing his position as a Store Keeper misappropriated the stationery in question. In this regard, FIR No. 61/96 was registered in the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and after usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the appellant denied the allegation and evidence of the prosecution. The appellant also submitted his written statement, but in spite of affording opportunity defence evidence was not produced by him.

(3.) The learned trial after appreciating and evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing both the parties arrived at a conclusion that the stationery in question was entrusted to the appellant as a public servant and he misusing his position as a public servant misappropriated the same and converted it for his use. By arriving to that conclusion, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order as aforesaid. Hence, the instant appeal.