SHANKER LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — 1996 DIGILAW 707 (RAJ)

Judgment A. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the original record. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case as unfolded by the first information report dated 19-11-1973 lodged by the Executive Engineer, District Division, Public Works Department, Jodhpur is this : Shri V. K. Sharma was posted as Overseer under Famine Sub-Division No. 20 PWD (B and R), Ahu. He was given an advance of Rs. 30,000/- by the Assistant Engineer Shri Vinod Kumar against the passed M/rolls vide Memo No. 3 dated 25-2-1969. The said Overseer submitted the account to the Sub-Divisional Office and the same was adjusted by the Assistant Engineer vide his Vouncher No. 7 of March, 1969 in the Divisional Office when the M/rolls No. 23013 to 23018 were checked it was noticed that there was a totalling error amounting to Rs. 1,006/ -. The Assistant Engineer while putting pass order has passed M/rolls for Rs. 6,666/- whereas actually the total of the M/rolls was Rs. 5,460/- only. Shri V. K. Sharm Overseer submitted the account for payment of Rs. 6,466/-, which was incorrect and he kept Rs. 1,006/- in his pocket. On detection of the embezzlement the amount was deposited vide cash receipt No. 22 dated 8-7-1969. He detained the amount in his possession from 25-2-1969 to 8-7-1969. It was stated in the first information report that Shri Vinod Kumar and Shri Shanker Lal S. D. C. were responsible for neglect of duty and the embezzlement could not have taken place without their knowledge. On the basis of the first information report lodged by the Executive Engineer, the police registered a case under S. 409, I. P. C. and after investigation submitted a charge-sheet under S. 173, Cr. P. C. in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi. ( 3 ) THE arguments on charge were heard by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi on 26-5-1982. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate held that V. K. Sharma had been given Rupees 30,000/- for payment and out of that amount he did not pay Rs. 1006/- and deposited that amount on 8-7-1969. He further held that the above mentioned sum of Rs. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate held that V. K. Sharma had been given Rupees 30,000/- for payment and out of that amount he did not pay Rs. 1006/- and deposited that amount on 8-7-1969. He further held that the above mentioned sum of Rs. 30,000/- were received by V. K. Sharma on 25-2-1969 and thereafter the payments were made and the accounts were prepared by Shanker Lal and payment to the labours was made not by Vinod Kumar but by others. He, therefore, held that Vinod Kumar was not responsible for the alleged embezzlement. So far as petitioner Shanker Lal was concerned, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi held that there was a prima facie case against Shanker Lal who kept the amount of Rs. 1006/- in his possession and misappropriated that amount and committed forgery in the muster rolls and prepared false account of the same. Consequently, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate discharged Shri Vinod Kumar and directed that charges under Sections 409, 467 and 120b I. P. C. be framed against Shanker Lal. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26-5-1982 the petitioner Shankerlal filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The revision petition was ultimately heard and decided by the Special Judge; Essential Commodities Act Cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur who by his order passed on 29-9-1989 rejected the revision petition and held that the revision was not maintainable as the order dated 26-5-982 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi was an inter-locutory order. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no case for framing the charges under Sections 409, 467 and 120-B I. P. C. is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the trial of the petitioner is unwarranted and it will amount to abuse of the process of the court. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. ( 7 ) I have gone through the record. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur shows that the disputed writings on muster rolls were sent for forensic examination. They were marked as Q. 1 to Q. 5. The specimen signatures S. 1 to S. 17 and S. 18 to S. 35 were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur shows that the disputed writings on muster rolls were sent for forensic examination. They were marked as Q. 1 to Q. 5. The specimen signatures S. 1 to S. 17 and S. 18 to S. 35 were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. The purpose of making a reference to the Forensic Science Laboratory was to establish the authorship of the disputed writings on the muster rolls. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory shows that the author of the specimen writings S. 1 to S. 17 was also the author of disputed writing marked as Q. 5 and the disputed writings marked as Q. 1 to Q. 4 were similar to the writing marked S. 1 to S. 17. S. 1 to S. 17 are the specimen hand-writing of the petitioner Shanker Lal. It is, thus, a prima facie evidence that the disputed writings marked Q. 1 to Q. 5 on the muster rolls were in the hand writing of the petitioner Shanker Lal. The disputed writing marked Q. 5 contains the total in words as well as in figures. It shows the total as 6,466. Q. 1, Q. 2 and Q. 3 are the entries in respect of the same amount. ( 8 ) IN view of the above evidence, it is difficult to say that there is no case for framing the charges against the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has no force and it deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. Petition dismissed.