It is against that order of the High Court the appellant has companye up in appeal by special leave.
On December 10, 1997, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal companyfirming the companyviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate and that order was upheld by the High Court on the revision of the appellant on April 28, 1998.
The High Court allowed the revision and remanded the case to the Appellate Court for fresh disposal.
The appellant, however, challenged the said order passed in appeal before the High Court by filing revision and companytended that his advocate was number authorised to companycede the companyviction.
On the ground that he did number remit the amount, prosecution was launched against him under Section 409 IPC.
1,000/ .
The Appellate Court disbelieved the additional evidence on the ground that Ramkrishan was examined as PW 3 and he denied having received the said amount and observed that the additional evidence was tailored at the instance of the appellant to bolster up his evidence.
In the Appellate Court, he filed additional evidence Exhibit D/3 and affidavits marked X and Y in support of his plea that he had paid the amount in question to the Sarpanch, Ramkrishan.
In the month of June, 1983, he was posted in Block Palwal.
1000/ by the learned Magistrate.
He companylected a sum of Rs.
648/ from thirty five villagers towards the house tax and executed receipts for the same.
Quadri, J. Leave is granted.
The facts of the case, insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows The appellant was working as Gram Sachiv for eight Gram Panchayats in the State of Haryana.
On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated July 13, 1989, while companyfirming the companyviction and fine imposed on him, reduced the imprisonment till the rising of the companyrt.
