DINESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-101
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 12,2013

DINESH CHANDRA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Pw 1 informant S.L.Kapoorwan, Inspector (Post Office), Karanprayag, lodged a first information report (Ext. Ka-8) against the accused-revisionist on 08.02.2000 regarding embezzlement of Rs. 17,000/- from the savings bank account of PW 2. After the investigation, a charge- sheet against the accused-revisionist was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. The accused was summoned to face the trial. Charge for the offences under Sections 409 and 402 IPC was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(2.) Pw 1 Sohan Lal Kapoorwan, PW 2 Smt. Usha Devi, PW 3 Bhanu Prakash Purohit, PW 4 Constable Bachan Singh, PW 5 Janki Lal and PW 6 Constable C.P.Vikram Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned CJM, Chamoli found the accused-revisionist guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC and sentenced him appropriately, vide judgment and order dated 11.05.2006. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, an appeal was preferred which was decided on 04.08.2008 by Sessions Judge, Chamoli. The criminal appeal was dismissed, the judgment and order of conviction & sentence awarded to the accused was affirmed. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.08.2008, present Criminal Revision was preferred.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted, at the very outset, that he has nothing to say on the merits of the case. Learned counsel contended that he has come to the Court with the sole prayer that the sentence awarded to the convict-revisionist be reduced. Learned counsel also submitted that the accused-revisionist remained in jail for 50 days during the course of investigation and trial. Learned counsel also prayed that the revisionist is ready to pay the enhanced fine, as may be awarded to him by this Court.;


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