Partly allowed

Laxmi Narayan v. State

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2024CRLR/352/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court affirmed the conviction of a Headmaster for criminal breach of trust (misappropriation of school funds). While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but enhanced the fine from Rs.1,000 to Rs.5,000.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs.5,000 with two months to deposit; bail cancelled.

Laxmi Narayan Vs State — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:42770]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 352/2004

¶4

Laxmi Narayan s/o Khemraj, aged 40 years, Resident of Lohariakhurd, PS Jahazpur, at present posted as Headmaster, govt. Upper Primary School, Makredi, Tehsil Bijoliya, Distt. Bhilwara (Rajasthan) (At present lodged at Distt. Jail Bhilwara)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Moyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

16/02/2024

¶13

By way of this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C the petitioner Laxmi Narayan has challenged the judgment dated 26.05.2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge & Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.82/2004 whereby the appellate court confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, Bijoliya in Criminal Case No.222/2001. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo one years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment, further ordered to undergo one month's Simple Imprisonment.

¶14

Succinctly the facts are as under: -

[2023:RJ-JD:42770]

[CRLR-352/2004]

(2 of 7)

2.1 The petitioner was posted as Headmaster in Govt. Upper Primary School, Makredi and the school was inspected by Additional Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mandalgarh. The Additional Block Education Officer found that student fund of Rs.7049.49/- and Govt. fund of Rs.365/- was missing in the cash box and petitioner was provided the opportunity to deposit the said amount on 16.10.2001 but the accused-petitioner failed to deposit the amount.

¶19

2.2 Thereafter, FIR under Section 409 IPC was instituted and after investigation charge-sheet under Section 409 IPC was filed before the learned trial court.

¶20

2.3 Prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and after recording the statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the trial court convicted the accused-petitioner under Section 409 IPC.

¶21

2.4 The accused-petitioner preferred the appeal against the trial court’s judgment dated 26.04.2004 and vide judgment dated 26.05.2004 the learned appellate court confirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court did not appreciate the evidence as per the legal requirements of law. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused-petitioner was entrusted with the money. He further submits that admittedly the evidence on record shows that accused-petitioner was sole incharge of the school and there was no safe place for keeping the school money, therefore, accused-petitioner kept the money with him. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused-petitioner

[2023:RJ-JD:42770]

[CRLR-352/2004]

(3 of 7)

was having any dishonest intention to misappropriate the aforesaid amount. Later on the accused-petitioner has deposited the entire amount on 22.10.2001, therefore the conviction under Section 409 IPC may be set aside and petitioner may be acquitted. In alternative it is also prayed that if the Court, arrived to the conclusion that accused-petitioner has committed the offence then he may be extended benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or relief of sentence already undergone.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have rightly concluded that accused-petitioner has misappropriated the amount and convicted & sentenced him under Section 409 IPC. Therefore, the judgment passed by learned appellate court may be confirmed/upheld.

¶28

To bring home a charge under Section 409 IPC, what is necessary to be proved is that the accused being a public servant and in such capacity was entrusted with the property in question and he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of it. 6. The accused-petitioner was posted as Headmaster on 15.10.2001. This fact remained uncontroverted and also cannot be denied. As far as question of entrustment of school money is concerned, the prosecution has examined PW- 5 Rahim Bux who in his examination-in-chief has stated that school was inspected by Additional Block Education Officer on 15.10.2001 and accusedpetitioner was present. The accused-petitioner was asked about the money of student fund as well as Govt. fund and accusedpetitioner accepted that the amount is lying with him and would

[2023:RJ-JD:42770]

[CRLR-352/2004]

(4 of 7)

deposit the same. PW-1 Chiranji Lal, who was working as Teacher at the relevant time, in his examination-in-chief has also stated that accused-petitioner was entrusted with the money and was purchasing the stationary items etc., at the relevant period. In his cross-examination also he has reiterated that accused-petitioner was having possession of money and regularly spent it in stationary and office expenses. Similarly PW-2 Shanker Lal who was also working as teacher at the relevant period in his crossexamination has stated that the accused-petitioner was entrusted with the money and was regularly utilizing it for stationary and office expenses. PW – 3 Brijraj Kulshrestha who inspected the school on 15.10.2001, has stated that he found that entries of Rs.7049.49/- and Rs. 365/- were made in the cash book but the said amount was missing from the cash box. He has also stated that accused-petitioner assured him that he would deposit the amount on the next day. It is stated that accused-petitioner did not deposit the amount on the next day and upto 20^th . Thereafter FIR was instituted against the accused-petitioner. PW -3 Brijraj Kulshrestha has exhibited in the inspection report prepared by him and also the complaint by the villagers against the accusedpetitioner as Ex.-P2. He has also stated that on 16.01.2001 the accused-petitioner submitted an application for depositing the aforesaid amount and exhibited it as Ex.-P4. PW – 4 Balwant Singh has instituted the FIR against the accused petitioner. He has corroborated the evidence of PW-3 Brijraj Kulshrestha, stating that the office was inspected on 15.10.2021 and the cash amount of Rs.7049.49/- and Rs.365/- was missing in the cash box. He has also affirmed the evidence of PW -3 Brijraj Kulshrestha regarding

[2023:RJ-JD:42770]

[CRLR-352/2004]

(5 of 7)

application submitted by the petitioner on 16.10.2001 stating depositing the amount later on. PW -4 Balwant Singh again inspected the school on 20.10.2001, on that day accusedpetitioner was absent from the school and after inquiry it was informed that the accused-petitioner was not coming school from 16.10.2001 without any written application. In his statement he has exhibited the FIR Ex.-P7 & Ex.-P8. He has also exhibited copies of cash book and ledger book as Ex.-P10 to Ex.-P12. In his statement he has categorically stated that last entry of Rs. 7049.49/- was made on 23.08.2001 in the relevant register. He has also stated that on 27.08.2001, 31.08.2001, 14.09.2001, 20.09.2001, 04.10.2001 and 15.10.2001 amount of Rs.350/-, Rs.250/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.50/-, Rs.250/- and Rs.5000/- was deposited in the post office. He has also stated that after registration of the FIR the accused-petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.9,600/- on 22.10.2001. The evidence of PW-3 Brijraj Kulshrestha and PW-4 Balwant Singh shows that accusedpetitioner was having charge of cash and was maintaining the cash book and ledger book etc. The evidence of the witnesses also proved that accused-petitioner was also utilizing the amount deposited in the cash book. The version of PW-3 Brijraj Kulshrestha and PW-4 Balwant Singh remained uncontroverted. In their cross-examination the witnesses have reiterated the allegation.

¶37

From perusing the documents Ex.-P10 to Ex.-P12 it is evident that on 23.08.2001 amount of Rs.7049.49/- was entered in the cash book. The evidence of above witnesses and the

[2023:RJ-JD:42770]

[CRLR-352/2004]

(6 of 7)

documentary evidence also exhibited that Rs.365/- was also not available in the cash box.

¶42

The accused-petitioner himself has submitted an application before the inquiry officer admitting the fact that he would deposit the said amount but accused-petitioner did not deposit the said amount and remained absent from the school from 16.10.2001 to 20.10.2001, when PW-4 Balwant Singh inspected the school. The petitioner has failed to refute the evidence put forth by the prosecution and could not tender any plausible explanation that why the money was not deposited in the cash book. His conduct of absent after inspection till 20.10.2001 further substantiate the story of the prosecution. The evidence of the witnesses clearly shows that accused-petitioner was entrusted with the money and was utilizing the school money for official and school stationary expenses. The defence of the accused-petitioner that the school was not safe and he was keeping the money in his use is not at all reliable. Every Public Servant is expected to follow the strict rules for maintaining the cash book and utilizing the money. The accused-petitioner did not informed the school authorities that school is not safe for keeping the cash. Thus, the conduct of the accused-petitioner speaks itself that accused-petitioner was continuously misappropriating the amount for his own use.

¶43

The learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have dealt with the evidence at length. After reappreciating the evidence of all the material witnesses, I am of the view that accused-petitioner has committed the offence under Section 409 IPC, therefore, I do not find any perversity in the findings concluded by the learned trial court as well as the learned

[2023:RJ-JD:42770]

[CRLR-352/2004]

(7 of 7)

appellate court upholding the accused-petitioner guilty under Section 409 IPC.

¶48

In view of the above, the judgment dated 26.05.2004 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge & Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.82/2004 is affirmed. However, while maintaining the accused-petitioner’s conviction for offence under Section 409 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone and the fine imposed by the trial court is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine. If the petitioner fails to deposit the fine, then the trial court shall issue arrest warrant against him for serving remaining period of sentence. He is on bail. The bail bonds stand cancelled.

¶49

The revision petition is partly allowed in above terms. Record of both the courts below be sent back forthwith.

¶50

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶51

9-Dharmendra Rakhecha/-

Laxmi Narayan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Narayan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar S/O Shri Sohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar S/O Late Kajodaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Aakash S/O Shri Rajesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Mohani Bai Vs Heera Lal

Vijay Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra Rankawat @ Bhanu Vs State of Rajasthan