Research › Search › Judgment

Sikkim High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 8 (SIK)

Phintso Rinzing Lepcha v. State of Sikkim

2011-09-05

S.P.WANGDI

body2011
JUDGMENT (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 Cri. Appeal No. 16 of 2010, upholding the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") 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 IPC 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. O."), PW-24, of the case. (ii) . Upon investigation it was revealed that the accused petitioner was serving in the Art and Culture Department, Government of Sikkim, since the middle of the year 1998 as an Accountant. Although the function of an Accountant had not been defined, as per the Drawing and Disbursement Officer (in short "DDO") of the Department and the Director, Accounts and Administrative Training Institute, it involved the maintenance of financial records, processing of bills, coordinating with Pay and Accounts Office and assisting the Accounts Officer in all accounts matter. In the absence of a Cashier the Accountant had to deal with the official transaction of cash or cheques with information to the DDO. In the absence of a Cashier the Accountant had to deal with the official transaction of cash or cheques with information to the DDO. At the material time, the accused petitioner was the only Accountant in the Culture Department and was entrusted with the work of maintaining records of transactions and accounts and that he was the custodian of the records of the accounts. It was his duty as the Accountant to enter the details of the receipt of cheques from the Pay and Accounts Office in the bills register and Cash Book respectively and place them before the DDO or the Head of the Department along with the Register and the duplicate bills. This was not done by the accused petitioner in respect of the questioned cheque after he received it through a peon on 6-4- 2000 and instead retained it with him and submitted it only on 7-4-2000 to the Secretary by writing on the reverse its side "Bank P1. pay to Shri Karma Lepcha" to be signed by the Secretary. The Secretary signed under the endorsement on the cheque without calling for the relevant documents in good faith and returned it to the accused petitioner who in turn hand it over to PW-20 for encashing it. (iii) . After encashment on the same day, i.e. 7-4-2000, PW-20 handed over the cash of Rs. 81,800/- to the accused petitioner in presence of Rinzing Lepcha, Peon/ Office Runner of the Department, PW-21 which the accused petitioner neither entered in the Cash Book nor disbursed it for its utilization nor brought it to the notice of DDO/A.O. which reflected his mala fide or dishonest intention. It was only after a lapse of over a month that the Accounts Officer, PW-18, Culture Department realised that the questioned cheque had not yet been received by him and, on enquiry accused petitioner informed that it had not been cleared by the Pay and Accounts Office. PW-18 then approached the Pay and Accounts Office and from there he learnt that the cheque had already been released to the Department which, was confirmed by PW- 21 who also disclosed that he had handed over the cheque to the accused petitioner and of it being endorsed in favour of PW-20 by the Secretary for its encashment by PW-20 and, further informed that PW-20 had handed over the encashed amount to the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner could not give satisfactory explanation and started becoming irregular in his duty in order to avoid his Senior Officers until 7-8-2000 when he was arrested. Having found prima facie material, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused petitioner under Section 409 IPC and was committed for trial in accordance with law. 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. (3) (i). Before this Court, the primary ground raised on behalf of the accused petitioner is that the prosecution has failed to prove the vital allegation that after the Secretary, PW- 12, had made the endorsement on the questioned cheque Exhibit, P-11, it was handed over by him to the accused petitioner. Mr. K. T. Bhutia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner, submitted that after the endorsement by the Secretary, PW-12, in favour of PW-20 there is a mystery as to the fate of the cheque, there being no evidence at all to connect the cheque with the accused petitioner. The only evidence as regards that, as per him, are the statements merits of two witnesses, namely, Karma Lepcha, PW-20, and Rinzing Lepcha, PW- 21. Although, PW-20 has stated that after encashment of the cheque he had handed over the cash to the accused petitioner, his evidence requires to be considered with due care and caution as he is an interested witness because the failure on his part to convince the authorities that he had indeed handed over the money to the accused petitioner, it would be him who would be held directly responsible and the finger of suspicion would point towards him. Caution becomes all the more necessary to be exercised as he went on further to state without its necessity that the money was handed over to the accused petitioner by him in presence of a witness, Rinzing Lepcha. PW-21. The learned senior counsel referred to the following portions of the deposition of Karma Lepcha, PW-20 :- "................The cheque for Rs. Caution becomes all the more necessary to be exercised as he went on further to state without its necessity that the money was handed over to the accused petitioner by him in presence of a witness, Rinzing Lepcha. PW-21. The learned senior counsel referred to the following portions of the deposition of Karma Lepcha, PW-20 :- "................The cheque for Rs. 81,800/- was encashed by me at SBS Secretariat branch and after encashment of the same handed over the amount to the accused. The handing over of the cash amounting to Rs. 81,800/- was also witnessed by one Rinzing Lepcha, PW-21 peon of culture deptt. Thereafter the cash amount of Rs. 81,800/- was kept by the accused person in the office Godrej drawer..............." (ii). It is further stated that even PW-21 cannot be believed as there are contradictions of serious nature in his deposition. Reference was made to the following portions of the deposition of PW-21 :- "............The cheque amounting to Rs. 81,800/- i.e. Ext. Pll already marked was given by the accountant to Karma Lepcha for encashment in my presence. Thereafter, the encashment amount of Rs. 81,800/- after encashment was handed over by Karma Lepcha to our accountant i.e. accused in my presence. Thereafter the said cash was kept by the accused person in his office Godrej Almirah." Re-cross examination by the defence. PW- ..............................It is true that I did not witness Karma Lepcha handing over the said amount after encashment to the accused Pintso Rinzing." (4) (i). It is submitted that the categorical statement to the contrary appearing in the cross examination extracted above was not at all controverted by declaring him hostile and re-examining him and, that the learned Appellate Court completely brushed aside such glaring evidence and considered only the other parts of the deposition. Attention of this Court was drawn to paragraph 25 at page 20 of the impugned judgment to emphasise this submission. That the finding of the learned Appellate Court of the evidence of PW-20 having been corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, such as, PW-10, PW-15, PW-18 and PW-19, is quite vague and not supported by any material. Attention of this Court was drawn to paragraph 25 at page 20 of the impugned judgment to emphasise this submission. That the finding of the learned Appellate Court of the evidence of PW-20 having been corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, such as, PW-10, PW-15, PW-18 and PW-19, is quite vague and not supported by any material. By referring to the decision of Joseph M. Puthussery v. T. S. John and others (2011) 1 SCC 503 : (AIR 2011 SC 906), it was submitted that the fact that PW-21 was not declared hostile for having made the contradictory statement referred to above, his evidence ought not to have been accepted by the Courts below and the benefit of doubt arising there Form ought to have been given in favour of the accused petitioner. Reference in this regard may be made to paragraph 28 of the judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel which is as under :- "23. It is relevant to notice that G. Govindar Nampoothiri, who is examined as PW-88, is witness for Respondent 1. Respondent 1 desires this Court to act upon the testimony of the said witness, who is examined by him. Respondent 1 has not disowned the testimony of PW-88 in the sense that the said witness was not declared hostile nor cross- examined on behalf of Respondent 1. Once the testimony of PW-88 read with that of DW-10 is acted upon, it becomes evident that Respondent 1 had led two sets of evidence each contradicting the other regarding distributing of pamphlets and obviously in such circumstances the reasonable benefit of doubt would go to the elected candidate, namely, to the appellant" (Emphasis supplied) (ii). Apart from the above, Mr. K. T. Bhutia also placed reliance on the case of Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2005) 5 SCC 272 wherein it has been held that :- "9. But the testimony of PW-8 Dr. Sukhdev Singh, who is another neighbour, cannot easily be surmounted by the prosecution. He has testified in very clear terms that he saw PW-5 making the deceased believe that unless she puts the blame on the appellant and his parents she would have to face the consequences like prosecution proceedings. But the testimony of PW-8 Dr. Sukhdev Singh, who is another neighbour, cannot easily be surmounted by the prosecution. He has testified in very clear terms that he saw PW-5 making the deceased believe that unless she puts the blame on the appellant and his parents she would have to face the consequences like prosecution proceedings. It did not occur to the Public Prosecutor in the trial Court to seek permission of the Court to heard (sic declare) PW-8 as a hostile witness for reasons only known to him. Now, as it is. the evidence of PW-8 is binding on the prosecution. Absolutely no reason, much less any good reason, has been stated by the Division Bench of the High Court as to how PW-8's testimony can be sidlined." (Emphasis supplied) (iii). Mr. K. T. Bhutia re-emphasised that PW-20 was an interested witness as it was he who had been given the responsibility to encash the questioned cheque and it was in his interest to shift responsibility elsewhere. In order to impress this Court on that aspect, he relied upon the judgment of Mst. Dalvir Kaur and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472: (1977 Cri LJ 273) where it has been held as under :- "13................The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason............." (Emphasis supplied) (iv). It was further submitted that the evidence of PW-10, Samdup Tshering Bhutia, the Junior Accountant and, PW-18, Karma Gyatso Dawa, the Accounts officer in the Department, clearly established that it was not the accused petitioner alone who dealt with the cash in the Department and that money or cheque was handled by both the Accounts Officer or the Accountant. Specific reference was made to the statement "it is true that once the cheque is encashed by the peon the amount is handed over to the Accountant or Accounts Officer" appearing in his deposition to support this contention. Specific reference was made to the statement "it is true that once the cheque is encashed by the peon the amount is handed over to the Accountant or Accounts Officer" appearing in his deposition to support this contention. Further, it was urged that the relevant Cash Book was not at all produced and although the Bills Register was exhibited to show that the entry of the questioned cheque had not been made, that by itself would not be sufficient to draw an inference of guilt of the accused petitioner other than giving rise to a mere suspicion. In support of this contention the decision of Abdul Mohammed Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu) (1980) 3 SCC 110: (AIR 1980 SC 499 : 1980 Cri LJ 220) more particularly the following passage 20 :- "20. The mind of the learned Special Judge in coming to the finding about the value of the work done being no more than Rs. 32,287.75 appears to have been influenced by the gross irregularities committed by the appellants in the execution of the work, specially their failure to prepare vouchers relating to all the payments as also a proper muster roll. These irregularities no doubt furnish a circumstance giving rise to a strong suspicion in regard to the bona fides of the appellants in the matter of the execution of the work but suspicion, however strong, cannot be a substitute for proof. And it is certainly not permissible to place the burden of proof of innocence on the person accused of a criminal charge. However, that is precisely what the Special Judge appears to have done while observing that "it was for A-2 to prove that he had spent amounts besides those proved by the prosecution which A-2 had failed to do." (emphasis supplied) (v). That it was necessary to note that the questioned cheque was dated 31-3-2000 which was encashed on 7-4-2000, and the FIR was lodged on 22-7-2000 and that these dates are significant as it will be seen from the notes of the Under Secretary at page 15 of the note sheet Exhibit 25 that the accused- petitioner was on leave with effect from 17- 5-2000 to 15-6-2000 and in fact, had been absent with effect from 12-5-2000 thereby clearly establishing that during the period of the incidences involving the questioned cheque the accused petitioner had been on leave. That from the facts and circumstances set out above, two views are possible to be drawn, namely, that the money after encashment of the cheque could have been taken by some other person or, that the accused petitioner is the one who was handed over with it. Under such circumstances, as per the learned senior counsel, the law is well settled that the view favouring the accused petitioner ought to be accepted. Reliance was placed on this proposition to the case of State of U. P. v. Nandu Vishwakarma and others, AIR 2009 SC 3188 : (2009 Cri LJ 4157) in paragraph 18 of which it has been held as follows :- "18. It is settled principle of law that when on the basis of the evidence on record two views could be taken - one in favour of the accused and the other against the accused - the one favouring the accused should always be accepted..............(emphasis supplied) (vi). Above being the position, it was urged by Mr. Bhutia that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment cannot sustain. (i). Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court this Court, sitting in its revisional jurisdiction ought not to interfere as no gound calling for such interference has been made out by the accused petitioner. It is stated that culpability of the accused petitioner stands firmly established form the evidence available in the records. The responsibility of the accused petitioner as an Accountant in handling cheques, cash, disbursement of salary, T. A., other allowances and payments have been proved by PW-10, Samdup Tshering Bhutia who was the Junior Accountant in the Depatment, PW- 11, Krishna Kumar Chettri, a Clerk engaged in the Department and PW-19, Ganesh K. Pradhan, the Director of Accounts and Administrative Training Institute. That in the course of discharging his duty the accused petitioner had submitted the questioned cheque to the Secretary, PW-12 by writing down the endorsement to the Bank in favour of Karma Lepcha, PW-20, on the reverse side of the cheque for signature of the Secretay, as the cheque was drawn in favour of the Secretary of the Department. That in the course of discharging his duty the accused petitioner had submitted the questioned cheque to the Secretary, PW-12 by writing down the endorsement to the Bank in favour of Karma Lepcha, PW-20, on the reverse side of the cheque for signature of the Secretay, as the cheque was drawn in favour of the Secretary of the Department. PW-9, the Joint Secretary, Archives Section of the Culture Department, had enquired of the bill relating to the construction of the shed at "Lhari Ningphu" Caves, West Sikkim in the later part of the year 2000 from PW-18, the Accounts Officer and the DDO of the Department. This as per the learned Additional Public Prosecution gave rise to PW-18 making inquiries about the missing cheque. The Secretary of the Department, PW-12 could not recollect about the cheque which further led to inquiries being made from the Bank resulting in the revelation of the fact of the cheque having already been encashed in the month of April, 2000. Further inquiries by PW-18 revealed that the cheque for Rs. 81,800/- had been collected from the Office of the Pay and Accounts by one Rinzing Lepcha, PW-21, Peon who had handed it over to the accused petitioner and thereafter, it was presumed that it was handed over to the Secretary, PW-12 by the accused petitioner. Enquiries from the Accountant General's Office revealed that the cheque had been encashed in the State Bank of Sikkim resulting in the lodging of the complaint before the Vigilance Police. (ii). The accused petitioner stopped attending the Office to enlighten the Department and also remained absent during the period of Audit in the Department despite being recalled for duty. It is clear from the deposition of PW-18 that the accused petitioner did not enter the particulars of the bill pertaining to the cheque in the Bills Register and the Cash Book as required and the entire transaction was not brought to his knowledge, but instead handed the cheque to one Karma Lepcha, PW-20 and got it encashed. As per the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the willful absence of the accused petitioner during this period is a serious circumstance appearing against the accused petitioner. As per the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the willful absence of the accused petitioner during this period is a serious circumstance appearing against the accused petitioner. He further went on to rely upon the evidence of PW-20, Karma Lepcha, and PW- 21, Rinzing Lepcha, and submitted that PW- 20 has stated in most categorical terms that he handed over the amount of Rs. 81,800/- after its encashment to the accused-petitioner in presence of PW-21 on 7-4-2000 and that this has fully corroborated by PW-21 when he stated that PW-20 handed over the cash to the accused petitioner by PW-20 after encashing the cheque. (iii) . It was the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that PW-20 cannot be termed as a 'partisan witness' and even if he is considered to be so, his evidence cannot be discarded as they have not at all been contradicted. The statement of PW-21 also requires to be given due consideration as, in the earlier part of the statement rendered more than 2 years before, he had most unequivocally corroborated the evidence of PW-21. The single sentence contradictory statement even accepted to be true as per the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not so grave as to vitiate the entire case of the prosecution. (iv) . By referring to the judgment of Jodhraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (6) Scale 242 : (2007 AIR SCW 2840 : 2007 Cri LJ 2942) it was submitted that even assuming that PW21 had turned hostile but not declared so, yet as per the law laid down it is permissible to rely upon a part of the testimony of such witness. I may refer to the following portion of the judgment:- "14. It is trite that only because a witness, for one reason or the other, has, to some extent, resiled from his earlier statement by itself may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution case in its entirety. The Courts even in such a situation are not powerless. I may refer to the following portion of the judgment:- "14. It is trite that only because a witness, for one reason or the other, has, to some extent, resiled from his earlier statement by itself may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution case in its entirety. The Courts even in such a situation are not powerless. Keeping in view the materials available on record, it is permissible for a Court of law to rely upon a part of the testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile." (Emphasis supplied) (v) Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the offence having been proved against the accused petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt, there would be no scope for interference with the findings of the learned Appellate Court. (5) (i). I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels, the evidence and the materials appearing in the record, and upon such consideration I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below. The issue that requires determination is as to whether there was any nexus between the cheque and the accused petitioner after the same was endorsed by the Secretary, PW-12 in favour of PW-20, the accounts helper on 7-4-2000, as it was the submission of the learned senior counsel for the accused petitioner that after the incident of endorsement of the cheque by the Secretary, PW-12 in favour of the accounts helper, PW-20, there is complete mystery as to the fate of this cheque and that the accused petitioner has been roped in as the accused only based upon the hearsay evidence of PW-18, the Accounts Officer of the Department, that of the interested witness PW-20 and of the unreliable witness PW-21. It was also the contention that the responsibility of the accused petitioner as the Accountant of the Department had not been defined and that it has been established by the evidence that the cash and cheques were being handled by both the Accountant, i.e., accused petitioner, and the Accounts Officer, PW-18. (ii). On perusal of the evidence, the responsibility of the accused petitioner stands well established. (ii). On perusal of the evidence, the responsibility of the accused petitioner stands well established. The depositions of PW-10, the Junior Accountant, PW-11, the Bills Clerk and PW-19, the Director of Accounts and Administrative,Training Institute, clearly sets out that the duty of the accused petitioner as Accountant was to maintain cash accounts, deal with disbursement of salary, allowances and payments of different bills. We may reproduce the relevant portions of the statements of those witnesses as under :- PW-10 "...........While working as Accountant in the Culture deptt, the accused was handling the cash, he was also disbursing the salary and accused was also dealing with the cheques received by the deptt. He used to encash the said cheques. My job as Jr. Accountant was to prepare the contingency bills and to submit the same for sanction and for the signature of the A. O............" PW-11 "..........Functioning as an Accountant in the deptt. the accused was maintaining cash accounts, he was dealing with disbursement of salary, allowances and payments on different bills..........." PW-19 "...........The job of the accountant depending on the size of the organization, the job of the accountant may include right from processing the bill for payment and ending to the payment that means the processing the bills making the contingent bills, sending it to pay and accounts office receiving the cheques from pay and accounts office, making entries in the cash book, contingent audit register and bill register and making payment to the payees and maintain the vouchers and cash books. It is the job of the accountant to produce all documents required by the audit party at the time of the departmental audit..............." (iii) From the above, there can be no manner of doubt that the responsibility of the accused-petitioner as Accountant was quite onerous and that the maintaining the amounts withdrawn from the Bank fell within the sphere of his duty. The evidence appearing in the deposition of PW-20 extracted above while dealing with the submissions on behalf of the accused petitioner, most categorically reveal that Rs. 81,800/- was received by him after encashment of the cheque and was handed over to the accused petitioner in presence of one Rinzing Lepcha, PW-21, a Peon/Office Runner of the Culture Department. The evidence appearing in the deposition of PW-20 extracted above while dealing with the submissions on behalf of the accused petitioner, most categorically reveal that Rs. 81,800/- was received by him after encashment of the cheque and was handed over to the accused petitioner in presence of one Rinzing Lepcha, PW-21, a Peon/Office Runner of the Culture Department. PW-21 in turn has corroborated PW- 20 in his deposition, which also is extracted while dealing with the submissions on behalf of the accused petitioner, in most unambiguous and categorical terms. It can, therefore, be clearly inferred that the money was indeed handed over to him by PW-20 after the cheque was encashed by him. (iv) . The contradictory statement of PW- 21 relied upon on behalf of the accused-petitioner, in my view, is not such as to shake the foundation of the prosecution case which appear to be firmly established when considered in the light of the facts and circumstances appearing in the evidence in its entirety. It is difficult to accept the assertion made on behalf of the accused petitioner that PW-20 is an interested witness on the vague premises that he would have been held responsible on the accused petitioner being found not guilty. I find no reason to disbelieve him. The incriminating statement against the accused petitioner made by him in his statement-in-chief, has not in any manner been shaken while being cross-examined. Such being the firmness of his evidence, even considering it in isolation I find it reasonable to accept it as credible. The contradictory statement appearing in his recross examination which, notably was taken more than 2 years after his last examination, requires to be considered in the light of the other evidence. Upon such consideration, I am of the view that it can be safely accepted as a credible piece of evidence corroborating the statement of PW-21. The contradictory statement appearing in his recross examination which, notably was taken more than 2 years after his last examination, requires to be considered in the light of the other evidence. Upon such consideration, I am of the view that it can be safely accepted as a credible piece of evidence corroborating the statement of PW-21. (6) Having thus analysed the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the following circumstances undoubtedly appear to be established against the accused petitioner :- (i) The accused petitioner was serving as an Accountant in the Department of Culture, Government of Sikkim, at the material time; (ii) It was the responsibility of the accused petitioner as the Accountant of the Department to maintain cash accounts, disbursement of salary, allowances, payment of bills, handling of cheques, cash etc.; (iii) That in the early part of the year 2000 an amount of Rs. 81,800/- was sanctioned for construction of sheds at the "Lhari Ningphu" Caves, West Sikkim, by cheque dated 31-3-2000; (iv) The cheque for Rs. 81,800/- dated 31-3-2000 was endorsed by the Secretary of the Department, PW-12, in favour of one Karma Lepcha, PW-20, accounts helper of the Department for its encashment; (v) The endorsement to be signed by the Secretary was scribed by the accused petitioner; (vi) The encashed amount of Rs. 81,800/- was handed over by PW-20, Karma Lepcha to the accused petitioner in presence of PW- 21, Rinzing Lepcha on 7-4-2000; (vii) The accused petitioner did not deposit, the amount to the Accounts Officer, PW-18, for its disbursal to PW-9, Mrs. C. Nangpa, the Joint Secretary of the Department; (viii) In the later part of 2000, Mrs. C. Nangpa, PW-9, Joint Secretary of the Department enquired about the bill relating to the construction of the shed which ultimately led to the registration of the criminal case against the accused petitioner. The above chain of circumstances stand proved beyond any reasonable doubt and, those circumstances form an unbroken chain that leads to the sole hypothesis that the accused petitioner mis-appropriated the money and, therefore, guilty of having committed the offence under Section 409 IPC. (7) (i). I, therefore, do not see any reason as to why the concurrent findings of the Courts below should be interfered with and accordingly, uphold the conviction passed against the accused petitioner. (ii). (7) (i). I, therefore, do not see any reason as to why the concurrent findings of the Courts below should be interfered with and accordingly, uphold the conviction passed against the accused petitioner. (ii). As regards the sentence, I am of the view that taking into account the fact that the accused petitioner is likely to lose his service and remained suspended from service since the year 2000 and, that it has been taken 11 years for conclusion of the case, the ends of justice will be met if he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period he has already undergone with the fine of Rs. 5,000/- remaining unaltered. In default of payment of fine the accused petitioner shall undergo further imprisonment of one month. (8) In the result, the Revision Petition stands dismissed subject to modification of the sentence stated above. No order as to costs. (9) (i). A copy of the judgment be transmitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division - I, Sikkim at Gangtok forthwith for compliance. (ii). A copy of the judgment be also sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok for information. (10) LET the trial Court records be sent forthwith. Petition dismissed.