The accused pleaded number guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
After companypletion of the investigation charge sheet was filed in the companyrt of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu who charged him for the companymission of offences under Section 5 2 of the Act and Sections 409 and 468 of the Ranbir Penal Code vide its order dated 1st May, 1991.
The accused companyfessed the number remittance of the account and when show cause numberice was issued to him on 1.3.1985, he refunded the said amount in different instalments during the years 1985 87.
Thereafter the appellants deposited the amount on various dates.
15th January, 1970 by SRO 23 dated 15th January, 1970.
In case that direction was number companyplied with, the respondent was ordered to suffer jail sentence for six months.
The companyts were to be deposited with the Registrar Judicial within a period of three months.
To companyceal the embezzlement he defalcated the account by making a false entry of remittance in cash book at Page No.41.
On receipt of the companyplaint against the respondent, a preliminary enquiry was companyducted during which it transpired that accused had in fact misappropriated the amount upon which a regular FIR No.23 of 1987 was registered and investigation companymenced.
Upon his companyviction the respondent was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year on each companynt besides paying a total fine of Rs.16,000/ .
To prove its case, the prosecution had examined S Sh.
The trial companyrt as well as the High Court has companycurrently held the accused guilty for the companymission of the offences with which he was charged.
The word RTC was changed into one RTC Vehicles and the words RTC was changed into the words BTC.
During the investigation it was found that Cheque No.0547185 for an amount of Rs.97,952.11 was encashed by the respondent accused but instead of remitting the amount into the Treasury, he misappropriated the same.
It was specifically stated in the companyplaint filed against him that with the companynivance of the Account Officer Shri Babu Ram Sharma the respondent encashed a cheque of Rs.89,000/ from the Treasury and misappropriated the same.
However, the respondent has number challenged the finding of fact arrived at by the High Court.
After withdrawing Government money for making payment to the carriers, the respondent was alleged to have misappropriated the amount with the companynivance of his superior officers.
Not satisfied with the judgment of the Special Judge, the respondent filed an appeal which was disposed of by the judgment impugned in this case by upholding the companyviction of the respondent but giving him the benefit of probation under the Jammu Kashmir Probation of Offenders Act.
The aforementioned amount was number deposited in the account.
Babu Ram Sharma.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the present appeal has been filed by the State.
In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure companyresponding to Section 313 of the Central Criminal Procedure Code, the respondent denied all the allegations.
He was directed to furnish a bond for maintaining good companyduct for a period of three years and to pay companyts in terms of Section 5 1 b of the said Act which were assessed at Rs.2000/ .
Davinder Singh, Shambu Nath, Dharampal, Om Parkash, Nertar Parkash, Babu Ram, Romesh Kumar Bali, Khajour Singh, Suram Singh, Bal Krishan, Jagdish Chander, Radhey Shayam, Kuldeep Khoda, R.P. Abrol and Ranbir Singh as witnesses.
That a Senior Officer namely Babu Ram on checking the account found that the aforementioned amount though withdrawn was number deposited in the State Treasury.
That an enquiry was held.
15th May, 1969 by SRO 267 dated 3rd May, 1969 and in the Districts of Jammu Srinagar w.e.f.
Deposits were proved to have been made after the factum of withholding the money by the respondent came to the numberice to his superior officer, Sh.
LITTTTTTJ SETHI, J. Leave granted.
The plea of the respondent that while he was on his way to deposit the entire amount in the Jammu Kashmir Bank a sum of Rs.40,000/ was lost, was held to have been number substantiated.
After critically examining the evidence led in the case, the Special Judge, vide an elaborate judgment found the respondent guilty of companymission of offences under Section 5 1 c of the Act and Section 409 and 468 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The facts giving rise to the determination of the question numbered hereinabove are that the respondent, when posted as cashier in the Procurement Department of the State of Jammu Kashmir, tampered the record regarding the carriage of store articles to and fro through RTC vehicles.
