SOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(HPH)-1954-6-2
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on June 08,1954

SOHANLAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ramabhadran, J. - (1.) The appellant has been convicted by the Special Judge, Mahasu, of an offence under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. This appeal was forwarded to this Court through the Superintendent of the jail at Solan. On 2-6-1954, an application was received in the office from the appellant to the effect that he wished to withdraw the appeal. Since the application was sent through post, it was not entertained and was returned to him in accordance with the Rules and Orders of this Court. Once a criminal appeal is filed and admitted, it cannot be withdrawn and has to be disposed of on its merits. I am supported in this view by a Pull Bench ruling of the Lahore High Court, reported in--'Emperor v. Ghulam Mohammad', AIR 1942 Lah 296 (A). There, it was held as follows: "The Legislature have never contemplated any withdrawal of an appeal once lodged, whether by the accused or by the Crown and once the appeal has been lodged and admitted, it is not in the power of any Court nor in the power of the appellant to allow the appeal to be withdrawn. The Court is bound once the appeal is admitted to proceed under Section 421 or under Sections 422 and 423 to decide the appeal on the merits."
(2.) The appellant is not present in Court today despite information. I have heard the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as Rationing and Evacuee Property Clerk at Solan in 1950. In that capacity, he received sums totalling Rs. 1,216/2/- on behalf of the Government. Instead of depositing them into the treasury, the prosecution case was that the appellant dishonestly misappropriated them. The sum mentioned above consisted of five items, which have been referred to in the charge-sheet. The learned Special Judge held that the offence was established in respect of three items and the offence in respect of the remaining two items was not proved beyond doubt. The first item consisted of a sum of Rs. 151/2/-, which was received by the appellant from one Rajendra Singh on 27-2-1950. Rajendra Singh was the appellant's predecessor. This sum was paid by Rajendra Singh to the appellant, when ne handed over charge, vide receipt Ex. PK. The appellant, instead of disbursing the amount, received from his predecessor dishonestly misappropriated it. Appellant's plea was that he could not disburse the amount as the payees were out of station. No evidence in support of this plea was, however, adduced, under these circumstances, the Court below was justified in holding the appellant guilty in respect of this item.;


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