TEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated April 29, 1972, of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, confirming the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 409, Penal Code but reducing the sentence from two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300.00 to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The petitioner was tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Merta, for offence under section 409, IPC. The gist of the offence charged against the accused-petitioner was that he was incharge of the 'malkhana' from 5-1-67 to 22-5-68. On 25.5.68 some articles of the 'malkhana' were found missing. Thereupon PW 15 R.P. Mitruka asked the petitioner to produce the valuables of the concerning cases, which bad already been disposed of. The petitioner could not produce some of the articles and as such he reported the matter to PW 19 Shri Suraj Narain Deedwania, who was working as District Judge, Merta, on that day. The learned District Judge gave a first information report to the police, which is marked as Ex. P. 22. On the same day all the articles were produced out of which Art. 15 Hansali was got recovered at the instance of the accused petitioner from PW 13 Chothmal. The case of the prosecution further is that this Hansali was pledged with Chothmal for a sum of Rs 40.00 by the accused-petitioner. The prosecution case was supported by PW 15 R.P. Mitruka, before whom the accused-petitioner made an extra judicial confession. It was also supported by PW 19 Suraj Narain Deedwania, author of the first information report, and PW 13 Chothmal, who stated that Hansali (Art. 15) was pledged with him by the accused-petitioner for an amount of Rs. 40.00. He also produced Ex. P. 1, a document alleged to have been executed by the petitioner while pledging that article. The statements of the defence witnesses and the plea of the accused-petitioner was disbelieved by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Placing reliance on the prosecution evidence the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused-petitioner under section 409, Penal Code and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300.00 and in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of three months. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions Judge, Merta, who on a re-appreciation of the evidence upheld the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 409, Penal Code but reduced the sentence awarded to him by the trial court, as mentioned above.

(3.) The petitioner thereupon has filed this revision petition. It is not necessary for me to consider the prosecution evidence in detail and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused as the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that there are no sufficient grounds made out for challenging the fact that the accused had committed criminal breach of trust regarding Hansali (Art. 15). However, I have carefully gone through (he., evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and I do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge, Merta. I hold that the accused-petitioner was rightly convicted for committing criminal breach of trust punishable under section 409 IPC.