SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOHAN Lal was convicted under section 409 I. P. C. and sentenced to six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu by his judgment dated 3. 5. 79 and his appeal has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu on 20. 7. 79. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this revision may be stated here. Some green 'khejadi' trees were found lying cut at the lime kiln of Goru Ram P. W. 1 and a report in this respect was made to the 'panchayat', whereupon a case under section 379. I. P. C. was got registered against Goru Ram with the police Goru Ram's plea in that case was that he had cut those 'khejadi' trees after having purchased them from the patwari, the present accused Sohan Lal on payment of Rs. 125/- and he produced a receipt to that effect before the police It appears that the police accepted this version of Goru Ram and exonerated him but registered a case under section 409 LP C. against the present petitioner Sohan Lal on the ground that being a public servant he had failed to deposit Rs. 125/- which he had received on account of the sale of the 'khejadi' trees to Goru Ram with the State Government and had thus embezzled the amount After investigations a challan was put up against the accused Sohan lal before the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Churu. When the statement of the accused Sohan Lal was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 3. 2. 77 before framing the charge, the accused stated that the receipt produced by Goru Ram, of course, bore his signatures but he had not issued this receipt but had only signed a blank paper and affixed his seal on it because a teacher Mohan Ram had request-ed him to issue a certificate in favour of one Pushparaj, a student who lived with the accused so that Pushparaj may be able to get scholarship. He had issued a certificate in this respect but Mohan Ram had further asked him to give a blank signed paper so that if the certificate issued by him was not found proper he may write out a proper certificate on that signed paper. When the charge under section 409 was framed against him on 4. 5. 77, he denied the charge and claimed to be tried. THEreupon the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and produced the receipt Ex. P. 1 and some other documents. THE accused in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution story and reinter-ated the stand taken by him in his earlier statement before charge. He also produced one Megha Ram in support of his plea that the receipt had been scribed on an already signed blank paper. THE learned Magistrate after considering the material on record convicted the accused petitioner and sentenced him as aforesaid and his appeal also failed before the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.

(3.) THE learned sessions Judge has also observed that Goru Ram does not appear to be a truthful witness and has tried to help the accused. It is rather surprising that learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance upon the statement of Goru Ram despite the fact that he has not treated him as a truthful witness and no corroboration whatsoever is coming forth to corroborate his evidence THE Learned Session Judge was, therefore, clearly wrong in placing reliance upon, such a witness in order to arrive the conclusion that Rs. 125/- had been paid by Goru Ram to Sohan Lal for the sale of the Khejadi trees.