V.S. JAIMAAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V.S. Jaiman, appellant, has been convicted & sentenced as under by the Special Judge, CBI cases Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide judgment dated July 19, 1983, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_58_LAWS(RAJ)11_19911.html</FRM> Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Two first information reports (RC Nos. 421 (Ex. P. 176, dated 17.5.77) and No 30 (Ex. P. 175, dated 11.6.77) were chalked out at Delhi Special Police Establishment Jaipur Branch, upon information received from a reliable source, with the assertions that during his posting from Feb. 11, 1972 upto May 24, 1974, as Agriculture Assistant in Central Bank of India, Bhilwara Branch, Shri V.S. Jaiman (appellant) collected amounts from the following borrowers against the loans which the Bank had advanced to them either for construction of wells or purchase of sheeps etc, - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_58_LAWS(RAJ)11_19912.html</FRM>

(2.) It had also been averred in the F.I.Rs. that V.S. Jaiman passed receipts to the borrowers for the amounts so collected. As per F.I.R. No. 30 (RC) the appellant did not deposit Rs. 1260.00 whereas according to F.I.R. No. (RC) 21, he deposited Rs. 200.00 instead of collected amount Rs. 300.00, only in each of the accounts of the borrowers. Thus, the allegation is that by not depositing Rs. 150.00(in FIR No. 30) and Rs. 900.00 (in F.I.R. No. 21) in the Bank alongwith the pay-in-slips as instalments paid by the borrowers, named above, the appellant dishonestly & fraudulently misappropriated or converted the said amount collected from the borrowers to his own use.

(3.) The CBI police investigated the matter and after usual investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the appellant for offences punishable under Sec. 409, IPC, besides Sec. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1917, (for short, the Act), on 17.8.78. On 8.1.79, the trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the said offences to which he denied and pleaded trial. The prosecution examined as many as 33 witnesses. The appellant was examined under Sec. 313, Crimial P.C.