9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sirmaur District at Nahan, convicting the respondent for commission of an offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/-, has been allowed. 2. The respondent was a Post Master at Chhapang, within the Police Station Pachhad in the District of Sirmaur. One Rajbir Singh (PW-3), uncle of the respondent-accused, was at the relevant time working in the Government High School, Ramadhon. He had deposited a sum of ₹ 8,000/- with the respondent-accused for purchase of National Savings Certificates. Necessary forms were also filled up by said Rajbir Singh and a receipt acknowledging the receipt of the said amount was issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1,000/- was also imposed upon him. The appeal preferred by the respondent before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, also came to be dismissed. In the revision application filed by the respondent, the High Court held that as the prosecution had not been able to prove 'misappropriation' on the part of the respondent, the judgment of conviction and sentence was unsustainable. 3. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the prosecution has been able to prove that the respondent misappropriated the said amount. Section 405 of the IPC reads as under: 405. Criminal breach of trust.- Whoever, being in any manner e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for which the same had been handed over to him also is admitted. When an enquiry came to be made by Shri Brijpal Thakur (PW-4), the respondent deposited the said amount in two installments along with a sum of ₹ 200/- by way of interest. The respondent, therefore, being a public officer had the requisite knowledge that the amount carried interest. On 16.7.1989, the postal savings certificates came to be issued. The respondent therefore thought himself liable to pay the said amount with interest, so as to reimburse to the complainant the amount to which was entitled by way of interest for depositing the said amount. Even on 30.11.1989, he did not deposit the entire amount. The entire amount came to be deposited by him on 11.12.1989. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the respondent had failed to produce any material for this purpose, the prosecution should not suffer therefore. 6. The learned Trial Judge as also the learned Sessions Judge arrived at concurrent findings of fact. The High Court, in our opinion, misdirected itself in passing the impugned judgment while exercising its revision jurisdiction. [See N. Bhargavan Pillai and Anr. v. State of Kerala 2004 CriLJ 2494]. 7. A contention has further been raised by Mrs. Sarada Devi, that no question was put to the respondent while he was being examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a view to give him an opportunity to explain whether the amount was given to him for his personal use or he converted the money for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
