CHANDER SINGH GAUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is revision petition against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur affirming the judgment passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Jaipur District, who convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 409 and 420 Penal Code for six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00on each count, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months R. I. in each case.

(2.) The petitioner was an employee of the United Commercial Bank, M. I. Road Branch, Jaipur and was posted as Special Assistant. Allegations against him are that he passed some cheques and withdrawal forms and thus cheating the Bank. He withdrew the money which he converted to his own use. Regarding the above allegation, a case was registered against him on 13th July, 19/8 and after investigation. C.B.I. submitted six charge-sheets as the amount was different period but on an application by accused, there was consolidation of cases and there remained two cases against the accused. In the both the cases the prosecution examined various witnesses and the learned Additional Chef Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused. In the another case, where the appeal No. 103/87 w s filed before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, the accused was convicted only for offence under Sec. 409 Penal Code and sentenced to six months K. I. and a sum of Rs. 500.00. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment from six months R. I. to the rising of the Court but maintained the sentence of fine. In the present case also, the trial Court after recording the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offence under Sec. 420 and 409 Penal Code and sentenced as indicated above which on appeal was confirmed. It is against this conviction add sentence that this revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the case for some time and realising that there is concurrent finding of fact and question of law is not involvement, confined his arguments to the quantum of sentence.