Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by complainant against order dt.11/09/07 in Cr.Appeal No. 4/07 whereby Addl.Sess. Judge (Fast Track) Behror (Alwar) while acquitting respondent No. 2 for offence Under Section 408, IPC, upheld his conviction Under Section 420, IPC passed by ACJM Behror vide judgment dt.07/11/2000 in Cr.Case No. 58/92 but released the accused on probation Under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
(2.) PETITIONER (complainant) filed complaint before trial Court, inter -alia alleging that he was carrying on business of Trading in a shop under his Proprietorship and accused respondent No. 2 was employed as servant on monthly salary of Rs. 800/ -so as to look after Firm's work so he used to maintain accounts but while working as servant, respondent (accused) committed offence Under Section 420 & 408, IPC. It has also been alleged in the report that he alongwith respondent No. 2 used to sit in the shop and to give goods on credit and used to recover the money, for which they used to maintain accounts and respondent No. 2 took money of Rs. 30,000/ - from certain persons but misappropriated the same. After investigation, challan was filed against respondent No. 2 for offence Under Section 420 & 408, IPC. After trial, respondent No. 2 was held guilty and sentenced Under Section 420 to undergo 3 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (in default, further 3 months' SI) and Under Section 408, IPC to undergo 2 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (in default, further 3 months' SI) vide judgment dt.07/11/2000 against which accused preferred appeal wherein he was acquitted of offence Under Section 408, IPC but his conviction Under Section 420, IPC was upheld and instead of sentencing him, he was released on probation Under Section 4 of probation of offenders Act vide judgment dt.11/09/07. While arriving at the finding for offence Under Section 408, IPC, courts below discussed in para 9 of the judgment impugned in details and observed that from the evidence came on record, prosecution failed to prove as to who were the persons from whom the accused took money and as to what has been misappropriated by him and even their statements could not have been recorded during trial and in all the documents reference whereof has been made of cash book and other record maintained by petitioner (complainant) i.e. Ex.P.18, P.21, P.22 & P.34, the accused has been shown as partner, therefore, benefit of doubt was extended to the accused for offence Under Section 408, IPC. However, while upholding conviction Under Section 420, IPC, while taking note of other material and the fact that incident relates back to the year 1990 for which the accused faced trial, the court of appeal considered it appropriate to grant benefit of probation to the accused.
(3.) THIS Court has gone through the impugned judgment and does not find any manifest error being committed by courts below which may call for interference; and that apart, even in revision petition, evidence cannot be minutely considered by court of revision. Hence this Court does not find any justification to interfere with findings recorded vide impugned judgments.;