JAWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali vide judgment and order dated 29.10.1993 in Cr. Regular Case No. 120/91 (811/79) convicted the petitioner under Secs. 409, 467, 420, 471, 474 and 477-A Penal Code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said Judgment, which was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali vide Judgment dated 15.5.1999 whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Secs. 409, 467, 471, 474 and 477A Penal Code was set-aside, but the conviction and sentence under Sec. 420 I.RC. was affirmed. The petitioner has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500.00 in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Now the petitioner has preferred revision petition against the impugned Judgment dated 15.5.1999.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Sub-Post Master in the year 1979 in Post Office Pali city. He made a representation to the complainant Ram Chandra that post office department is constructing shops and if he wants to purchase the same, he should deposit Rs. 10,000.00 in the post office. Ram Chandra deposited Rs. 10,000.00 and the pass book was issued to him. The sum of Rs. 9,990.00 was withdrawn from his account about after 10 days. Ram Chandra made a complaint to the Superintendent, Post Office, Pali and also stated therein that money withdrawn from his account i.e. 9,990.00 has not been received by him. The prosecution case is that the Post Office department did not lunch any such scheme as told by the petitioner to the complainant Ram Chandra and by false representation, he got open his account in the post office with Rs. 10,000.00. The withdrawal form was given by Ram Chandra with his signature which is an admitted fact, but he did not receive the amount. On this complaint, case was registered against the petitioner and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and trial took place. The petitioner was thereafter convicted and sentenced as above. There is no appeal or revision against the judgment of acquittal by the learned Appellate Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his argument on the quantum of sentence only. He has not advanced any argument on the conviction of petitioner under Sec. 420 IPC. On perusal of judgment of learned Appellate Court, I am of the view that there is no cogent and valid reason to interfere with the Judgment of Appellate Court. The conviction under Sec. 420 Penal Code recorded against the petitioner deserves to be maintained. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident relates to the year 1979 i.e. of 20 years' back. The petitioner has suffered lot of mental agony and financial hardship in a prolonged litigation. The petitioner has already served part of sentence for about 101/2 months. The offence now is proved under Sec. 420 IPC. In view of this, it is alleged that substantive sentence of petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.