ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE AND MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by complainant against order dt.11/09/07 in Cr.Appeal No. 4/07 whereby Addl.Sess. Judge (Fast Track) Behror (Alwar) while acquitting respondent No. 2 for offence Under Section 408, IPC, upheld his conviction Under Section 420, IPC passed by ACJM Behror vide judgment dt.07/11/2000 in Cr.Case No. 58/92 but released the accused on probation Under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) PETITIONER (complainant) filed complaint before trial Court, inter -alia alleging that he was carrying on business of Trading in a shop under his Proprietorship and accused respondent No. 2 was employed as servant on monthly salary of Rs. 800/ -so as to look after Firm's work so he used to maintain accounts but while working as servant, respondent (accused) committed offence Under Section 420 & 408, IPC. It has also been alleged in the report that he alongwith respondent No. 2 used to sit in the shop and to give goods on credit and used to recover the money, for which they used to maintain accounts and respondent No. 2 took money of Rs. 30,000/ - from certain persons but misappropriated the same. After investigation, challan was filed against respondent No. 2 for offence Under Section 420 & 408, IPC. After trial, respondent No. 2 was held guilty and sentenced Under Section 420 to undergo 3 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (in default, further 3 months' SI) and Under Section 408, IPC to undergo 2 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (in default, further 3 months' SI) vide judgment dt.07/11/2000 against which accused preferred appeal wherein he was acquitted of offence Under Section 408, IPC but his conviction Under Section 420, IPC was upheld and instead of sentencing him, he was released on probation Under Section 4 of probation of offenders Act vide judgment dt.11/09/07.

(3.) THIS Court has gone through the impugned judgment and does not find any manifest error being committed by courts below which may call for interference; and that apart, even in revision petition, evidence cannot be minutely considered by court of revision. Hence this Court does not find any justification to interfere with findings recorded vide impugned judgments.