NARESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-100
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 08,2013

NARESH CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) In the present revision, revisionist is assailing judgment and order dated 23.08.2005, whereby the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in criminal case no. 152 of 2005 was pleased to hold the accused-revisionist guilty for an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and was pleased to sentence him to serve one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of INR 1000/-, failing which to undergo additional six months imprisonment and judgment and order dated 03.05.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, whereby appeal filed by the accused-revisionist was dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that revisionist-accused was a license holder of fare price shop in village Salla, District Pithoragarh. Since there was some dispute between Jagdish Singh and Keshar Singh, so the District Administration has decided to entrust the ration of village Salla to the revisionist-accused for the free distribution amongst the poor labours engaged in the road construction work. Despite lifting 35.45 quintals of wheat and 51.31 quintals of rice accused-revisionist did not distribute the same amongst eligible one and has sold it in the black market, therefore, has committed an offence punishable under Section 406, 409 IPC. Although, revisionist was charged by the learned Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC as well as under Section 406 IPC. However, he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC only and was acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 409 IPC.
(3.) Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that entire case is roaming around the Exhibit A1', the order whereby, revisionist-accused was directed to lift the 31.45 quintals of wheat and 51.31 quintals of rice, however, this was never lifted by the revisionist-accused. Therefore, there is no entrustment, consequently, offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out.;


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