LAXMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgrnent passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Dausa dated 10-7-79 whereby he partly accepted the appeal of the petitioner. The learned AddI. Sessions Judge while partly accepting the appeal reduced the sentence, but he maintained the conviction of the petitioner under section 409, I.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Shri Prabhu Dayal Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Sambhar Lake, sent a written report on 15.7.72 to the Police Station, Sambhar Lake, with this averment that at the time of audit a case of embezzlement was detected against the petitioner. It was further alleged in the report that Laxman Singh petitioner was an L.D.C. in the Electricity Board who used to collect the electricity bill demand on the spot, and in this way he was also working as a cash collector. It was further alleged in the report that a demand of Rs 103.03P. was issued against one Dayal son of Buddha in account No. 10/25/1. This amount was collected by the petitioner in the month of June, 1970, but the same was not deposited in the office and in this way the petitioner misappropriated the amount which was to be deposited in the office of the Electricity Board. On receipt of this report, initially a case under section 408, I P.C. was registered against the petitioner, but during the course of investigation the facts as alleged in the report were found to be correct. During the course of investigation, it was also known to the investigating agency that the petitioner received the amount of demand from Kesra and he gave the receipt on the same bill while writing that the amount is received. That bill is marked as Ex. P.

(3.) This amount was also found to have been entered in the ledger, but had not been deposited in the Board. Therefore, a charge sheet for an offence under section 409, I.P.C. was submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. After recording the prosecution evidence and statement of the accused, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and. sentenced him to one yearTs R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo one monthTs R.I. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was decided as indicated above. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: