AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 9359/09 which is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this revision. As per office note, the revision is barred by 32 days.
Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A. is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.
Heard on admission.
This revision has been preferred u/s 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 11/2/2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Sagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 120/07, whereby judgment passed by Shri Sanjay Sharma, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rehli in Criminal Case No. 145/2001 was affirmed. Accordingly, the respondents stand acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 468, 420, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC").
Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents embezzled an amount of Rs. 8304/- from the provident fund of Tulsiram Khare, Patwari, by preparing a forged application & bill, fraudulently obtaining orders for its withdrawal, preparing the BTR and submitting the bill in the Treasury. On the complaint the FIR was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
After appreciating the evidence of Chintaman (PW1), Rajendra (PW2), Surendra (PW3), Harish (PW4), Santram (PW5) and Anil (PW6), trial Court found that the original signature of Tulsiram was not produced before the Court for comparing the same with the signatures on the disputed document. Tulsiram also could not be examined as he had died. Authority letter submitted before the Treasury for withdrawal was also not proved by the prosecution. Considering all this, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellate Court also affirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
We agree with the findings recorded by the Courts below and no illegality or perversity is reflected therein.
It is well-settled that this Court in revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence, unless the finding of fact is manifestly perverse or patently erroneous.
Thus, taking into consideration the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and other relevant facts & circumstances of the case, no interference with the impugned judgment is called for. The revision, therefore, stands dismissed.