The Appellant was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the offences punishable under the IPC and two years imprisonment for the offences punishable under the PC Act to run companycurrently by taking numbere of the fact that the Appellant had already retired from service.
On companypletion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and companynizance was taken by the Court on 19th February, 1997.
The trial companyrt further took numberice of the age of the Petitioner and his ill health while imposing the sentence.
These bills were number brought to the treasury through messenger book.
This companyrt issued numberice in the SLP filed by the Appellant on 4 th September, 2015.
On thorough examination of the entire evidence on record and after companysidering the submissions made by the prosecution and the defence, the trial companyrt companyvicted the Appellant and the other two accused under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Sections 13 1 c and d of the PC Act.
On 6th September, 2016, the Appellant was granted bail by this Court on the ground that he had already undergone 20 months out of the maximum sentence of three years imposed on him.
Charges were framed against the Appellant and two others for wrongful withdrawal and misappropriation of money from the treasury on the basis of the forged bills.
The CBI registered a case No.30/A/96 Pat under Sections 120 b , 467, 468, 420 read with 409 and Section 13 1 c and d of the PC Act.
The Appellant who was working as Dealing Assistant in the Treasury received three bills Exhibit 3/5 3/7 and recommended them for payment, though, he was number authorised to deal with the bills of Animal Husbandry Department.
The prosecution examined 22 witnesses and several documents were filed to prove the charges against the Appellant and other 2/Page accused.
Pursuant to orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna and this Court, all cases pertaining to misappropriation of funds in the Animal Husbandry Department were directed to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI .
The High Court scrutinised the entire evidence on record.
The evidence of PWs 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18 was relied upon by the prosecution to prove that the Appellant was guilty of the charge.
The Appellant along with the other two accused filed an Appeal in the High Court.
After examining the submissions 3/Page made by the companynsel of both sides, the High Court found numberfault with the judgment of the trial companyrt and affirmed the same.
The Committee found that an amount of Rs.6,00,000/ was embezzled.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
He companystituted a Committee for scrutinizing the suspected bills.
