STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. VIJAY PAL SINGH
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttaranchal (now State of Uttarakhand)
VIJAY PAL SINGH
Click here to view full judgement.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. -
(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 06.07.2001, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No. 1731 of 1991, whereby said court has acquitted the accused/respondent Vijay Pal Singh from the charge of offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Lower court record of this case is reported to have been weeded out.
(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that accused/respondent Vijay Pal Singh was Storekeeper with Central Store of U.P. Irrigation Department, situated at Mayapur, Gangnahar -3, Haridwar. He was arrested on 19.10.1982, in connection with Crime No. 28 of 1982, relating to offences punishable under Section 364, 302, 394 of I.P.C., On 26.08.1982, he was found absent from duty, consequently, he was suspended vide letter No. 7042 dated 05.11.1982, issued by Superintending Engineer, w.e.f. 28.08.1982. Thereafter, it was found that there was shortage of construction material from the store amounting to Rs. 22,74,982.35/ - and First Information Report was got lodged against the accused/respondent Vijay Pal Singh, in respect of offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against him. The trial court after framing the charge, recorded evidence of the prosecution, and found that the charge could not be proved against the accused/respondent Vijay Pal Singh and acquitted him accordingly. Hence this appeal. Section 409 of I.P.C. provides punishment for the criminal breach of trust committed by a public servant. To constitute said offence, it is necessary for the prosecution to show that some property was entrusted to the accused. From the impugned judgment, it appears that there was no evidence on record suggesting that there was entrustment of the property which was found missing. The trial court has taken note of this fact.
(3.) NOT only this, the trial court has rightly mentioned that there is no evidence given by any of the four witnesses, examined on behalf of the prosecution that after the arrest of the accused/respondent Vijay Pal Singh, in connection with the murder case on 19.10.1982, as to who was looking after the Central Store of the Irrigation Department in Mayapur at Haridwar. It is also not clarified by the prosecution in the evidence, as discussed by the trial court that none of the witnesses could tell that how many persons had accessed in the store in connection with the construction material.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.