BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-126
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 07,2013

BALBIR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the papers on record, it transpires that this revision is directed against the concurrent judgments of conviction passed by Courts at Tehri Garhwal. Accused revisionist Balbir Singh was tried for the offence of Section 409 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 31.1.2001, trial concluded in his conviction for the offence under Section 408 IPC and the revisionist was sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 35,000/-. In default of payment of fine, six months' imprisonment was awarded to the revisionist. Appeal filed by the convict revisionist Balbir Singh was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal on 23.8.2006. Hence, this revision.
(2.) In brief, the facts are that accused Balbir Singh, in the capacity of his being the Secretary of a co-operative society, embezzled the money of that co-operative society during 1986-87. He misappropriated as much as Rs. 40,246.36. The modus operandi of the accused revisionist was that he used to receive the money from the members of the society, but instead of depositing that money in the accounts of society, he kept the same with himself and thus misappropriated a huge amount. The offence was detected after a considerable period of time when the members of the society could not get their money back. So, an FIR was lodged by Kripal Singh, successor of the revisionist as the revisionist Balbir Singh was put under suspension. Investigation resulted in submission of chargesheet and subsequently in the conviction of the accused revisionist, as stated above.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that submission of the chargesheet and trial was barred by Section 468 CrPC because at the most the offence allegedly committed by the accused was covered under Section 406 IPC. This argument is quite baseless and is rejected inasmuch as it was not a simple criminal breach of trust, rather it was criminal breach of trust committed by a clerk/servant of the cooperative society, which was established and registered under the relevant Act of the Government. Thus, it was a Government oriented co-operative society. As such, the offence committed by the accused revisionist attracts the punishment as envisaged under Section 408 IPC.;


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