DINESH LAL SON OF LATE ANANT LAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUSARIA, PS JAMUA, DISTRICT GIRIDIH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 07.06.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and where under the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 1685 of 1995 corresponding to T.R. No. 264 of 2000 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 409/420 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years have been affirmed.

(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proper appreciation has not been made to the materials available on record by the learned courts below. It has been stated that there was a departmental audit held by the D.S.E., but its report has never been brought on record. He further submits that several important documents which would show that the money was not withdrawn and which was lying in the custody of the treasury has not been brought forward by the prosecution. He further submits that there is no allegation that the alleged defalcated amount was not disbursed, as no person has come forward to state such fact. He has also stated that there is delay in instituting of FIR and no plausible explanation has been submitted by the prosecution with respect to such delay. Furthering this argument he submitted that provision of 197 of Crimial P.C. has also not been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put forward an alternative argument that if this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence may suitably be modified.