RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. C. S. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
(2.) This application has been directed against the judgment dated 24.09.1999 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1996 whereby and where under the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 19.01.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro at Chas in Complaint Case No. 30 of 1984 has been dismissed and the same has been affirmed.
(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no entrustment could be gathered from the complaint filed so as to invite an offence under Section 408 of Cr.P.C. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Daftari and in fact embezzlement has been made by the Principal of the School and the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. He by way of alternative argument further submits that petitioner has sufficiently been punished as he has faced the rigors of the prosecution case from 1984 and out of punishment of one year, he had remained in custody for 2 and half months. He also submits that complainant was never examined which vitiates the prosecution case and which fact has not properly been appreciated by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court.;