State of H.P. vs Chet Ram

R.B. Misra, J.—The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 6.12.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal appeal No. 16 of 1994, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused in an appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.9.1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur for the offence u/s 409 of I.P.C.

The prosecution case is that the accused while posted as Weaving master in H.P. State Handicrafts and Handloom Corporation Ltd. (in short �Corporation'') in the branch office at Hamirpur, as daily wager was entrusted with the store and stock of production and procurement unit during the year 1982-83 and later on shortages to the tune of 85,492.44 paise was found during audit. Accused/respondent was charged for the above said offence and after investigation the case was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, accused/respondent was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

According to the learned Counsel, the accused already faced the prosecution for criminal misappropriation of the property worth Rs. 68606.05 and although the year of such misappropriation is described to be 1983-84, yet the amount of Rs. 68606.05 P is also inclusive of the amount involved in the present case which is to the extent of Rs. 23856.60 P and thus according to learned Counsel on the short ground alone, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel further contended that the entire oral and documentary evidence in the previous case is identical as in the instant case and the prosecution by no stretch of imagination can be said to have succeeded in bringing home the guilt against the accused in the instant case.

We have gone through the materials on record and copy of the judgment dated 22.9.1994 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in police challan No. 79-II of 1987 as well as the impugned order in question.

The alleged criminal misappropriation in respect of the property worth Rs. 68606.05 P although for the year 1983-84. The perusal of the judgment further shows that the documentary and oral evidence is identical in the two cases. In fact, both these cases were decided on the same date. Vide impugned judgment, the accused was convicted and sentenced for offence u/s 409 I.P.C. while vide the judgment of the same date in police challan No. 78-II of 1987 he was acquitted of such offence. In respect of police challan No. 78-II of 1987, the accused faced prosecution for criminal mis appropriation of the property worth Rs. 68606.05 paise. In the instant case, he is facing the prosecution for criminal misappropriation of the property worth Rs. 23856.60 P. There is nothing on record to establish the criminal misappropriation of the property worth Rs. 23856.60 P or of the less amount and it pertaining to the year 1982-83. It is not understandable what oral and documentary evidence led in the instant case is intended to be used by the prosecution for the purpose of proving the criminal misappropriation of property worth Rs. 23856.60 P during the year 1982-83 when the evidence has already been considered and disbelieved by the trial court in police challan No. 78-II of 1987. Whatsoever oral and documentary evidence has been led in the instant case, is not discernible from the evidence referred in the judgment passed in police challan No. 78-II of 1987.

In these circumstances, there is no occasion to make an indulgence in the impugned order dated 6.12.1995 arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge while exercising its power of appellate authority against the order dated 22.9.1994 of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, we find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment. The criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

The bail bonds, furnished by the accused/respondent, are discharged.