Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

After that, the complaint was filed in the Police Station, Parwanoo, which led to the registration of the FIR mentioned above.

4. After completing the investigation, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Parwanoo, launched prosecution against all the three accused. Vide order dated 2.8.1991, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli framed charges against all the three accused of embezzlement of accounts of the company during the year 1988 and thereby for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B, 408, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC for embezzlement of funds amounting to Rs.94,708/-. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, convict Prem Dayal filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Court, Solan, and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan partly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction under Sections 420, IPC for cheating and Section 468, IPC for forgery for cheating. However, learned Appellate Court upheld the conviction under Sections 408, 465, 471, and 477-A, IPC and did not alter the sentence.

11. Challenging the dismissal described above of appeal, the convict came up before this Court by filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition.

24. A perusal of the evidence proved by the prosecution does not prove the entrustment of the money to the convict. A person can misappropriate only that amount that is entrusted to him. Thus, to make out an offence punishable under Section 408, IPC, the foremost requirement is to prove that the property was entrusted to such person. However, there is not even an iota of evidence to prove the entrustment of alleged money to the convict-petitioner.

25. To prove the offence of forgery punishable under Section 465, IPC, in the counter-foils which were retained with the company, tampering had taken place, and after that, none had rechecked it. Secondly, to prove such forgery, it was essential to prove that who did it, but, in this case, handwriting specimen is not legally admissible.