MOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY their three separate but almost commonly worded judgments and orders of even dates the two court below have found the petitioner guilty of the offence Under Section 409 IPC, convicted him as such and sentenced him to undergo six months R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - in each of the three cases. Parties, nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and questions of facts and law involved being common to all the three petitions these were heard together and are now being decided by this common order. The main order shall be placed on the record of Criminal Revision Petition No. 41 of 1993 Modi Singh v. State and a copy thereof on each of the remaining case files.

(2.) FACTS , relevant and common to all the three petitions are these: During the years 1973 -76 the. petitioner had been working as a 'patwari' in the Revenue Deptt. of the State Govt. from July 12, 1973 to June 7, 1976 he remained posted as Patwari in Patwari Circle No. 26 Sikroda Meena. His duties included recovery of land revenue and other Govt. dues from the agriculturists and on demand to issue copies of certain documents to them against cash payments. To carry out his official duties he was issued certain receipt books containing receipts in triplicate. The original receipt was to be delivered to the person paying the dues, the duplicate receipt was to accompany the challan through which the Govt. money was to be deposited in the treasury at Tehsil H.Q. and the triplicate was to remain in the receipt book which was to be kept by the petitioner. The amounts received and deposited were to be entered into a cash book (Sihaya) to be maintained and kept by the petitioner. During the relevant period the petitioner is alleged to have been issued, inter alia, Cash Book, Receipt Books bearing Nos. 80309 and 20773, besides other relevant papers and documents. He worked in that Circle upto 7.6.76 under his immediate Superior Officer Sh. Mohd. Rafi Girdawar.

(3.) I heard the learned Counsel for the parties at sufficient length and carefully examined the records of the two courts below.