PHINTSO RINZING LEPCHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the present Revision Petition, the accused petitioner seeks to assail the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division -I. Sikkim at Gangtok dated 12-10-2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 16 of 2010. upholding the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "I.P.C.") and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok in General Register Case No. 1 of 2004.

(2.) (i). The case of the prosecution is that on 22-7-2000, an FIR was lodged by Mr. Kunzang N. Khangsarpa, Additional Secretary of Art and Culture Department, Government of Sikkim, PW-15, stating that a cheque bearing No. 175846 dated 31-3-2000 amounting to Rs. 81,800/- only which was issued in favour of Secretary, Culture Department, PW-12, for preservation work in the "Lhari Ningphu" Caves, West Sikkim. The cheque was endorsed by the then Secretary to Phintso Rinzing Lepcha, Accountant of the Culture Department, the accused petitioner, who in turn directed Karma Lepcha, PW-20, who was at the material time assisting in the Accounts Section of the Department, to encash the said cheque. PW-20 on encashing the cheque handed over the amount to the accused petitioner who, however, did not hand over the cash to Accounts Officer, PW-18, for proper utilization and misappropriated the same. Based on this, a Regular Vigilance Case No. 9 of 2000 under Section 409 I.P.C. was registered by the Vigilance Police against the accused petitioner and investigation taken up by one K. B. Gadaily, the Investigating Officer (in short "I.0."), PW-24, of the case.

(3.) After the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, found the accused petitioner guilty of the offence and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him by judgment dated 29-4-2005. Upon appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division-I, Gangtok, upheld the conviction and sentence vide the impugned judgment dated 12-10-2010 which is under challenge in the present Revision.