STATE OF NAGALAND Vs. B.N. PANT AND ANR.
LAWS(GAU)-1994-6-19
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 09,1994

STATE OF NAGALAND Appellant
VERSUS
B.N. Pant And Anr. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KRISHAN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VISHWA NATHI VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

H.K. Sema, J. - (1.)THIS revision is directed against the Judgment and order dated 11.5.93 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (J) Tuensang in GR Case No. 74/92
(2.)IN this case, rule was issued on 12.4.94 and a notice wart issued to the Respondents No. 1 and 2, Office note dated 3.5.94 indicates that the service of notice upon Respondents 1 and 2 was duly served, however, none appeared for the Respondents. Lower Court records have been received and perused the same.
The genesis of the prosecution story may be briefly recited. On 16.7.92, a complaint was lodged by Sub -Divisional Inspector of Post Office to O.C. Police Station Tuensang to the effect mat the accused B.N. Pant and accused S.C. Kakoti misappropriated the Government's money to the tune of Rs. 88,688.26/ - and requested to take necessary action. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Tuensang P.S. Case No. 7(7) 92 Under Section 409 I.P.C. was registered and investigated upon, On completion of investigation, a prima facie case was established against the accused persons and the I.O. submitted charge sheet on 2.9.92, From the order it appears no further progress was made in the trial after the submission of the chargesheet. However, on 11.5.93 the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (J) Tuensang after examining the accused Under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure has disposed of the GR Case 74/92 on merit showing leniency to both the accused by directing them to deposit the misappropriated money within a period of One and half years on monthly instalments basis.

(3.)BY the aforesaid Judgment, the learned A.D.C, (J) also directed the authority to revoke the suspension order of the accused persons and reinstate them in their services to enable them to deposit the amount on monthly instalment basis. The learned A.D.C. (J) was of the view that there was an agreement entered into between the accused and the complainant on 10.7.92 that the accused would deposit the misappropriated amount within 30 days w.e.f. 10.7.92 to 10.2.93 to the Sub -Divisional Post master Tuensang, The learned A.D.C.(J) Was therefore, of the view that before the expiry of the simulated period of 30 days, complainant has lodged the Criminal complaint in writing According to the learned A.D.C. (J) the aforesaid action of the complainant was improper because the complaint was lodged before the expiry of 30 days.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.