Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 919 (GAU)

Tarun Narah v. State Of Assam

2019-08-21

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. Heard Mr. Sk. Muktar, learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the respondent No.1/State as well as Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2/complainant. 2. The revision petitioner Tarun Narah was convicted u/s.409 of the IPC, in C.R. Case No.242/2009, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further six months, on the allegation that while working as the Secretary (Sasib) under the Sarba Sikhya Abhijan (SSA), the accused/petitioner withdrew all the amount granted by the SSA and misappropriated an amount of Rs.21,400/- (Rupees twenty one thousand four hundreds) only from the concerned, payable to the complainant Phatik Narah, who was working as Gaon Siksha Karmi. The aforesaid amount was pertaining to the period from August, 2007 to March, 2008. 3. Accordingly complaint was lodged by said Phatik Narah, alleging misappropriation of the amount by the accused/petitioner in the Court of learned SDJM, Dhakuakhana and the learned trial Court registered the same as C.R. Case No.242/2009, u/s.409/323/506 IPC and after examining the complainant, charge was framed u/s.409/323 IPC, to which the accused person pleaded not guilty. After examining five prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court held the accused person guilty u/s.409 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. 4. The learned appellate Court also affirmed the judgment passed by the Court below. Hence the present revision has been preferred against the concurrent findings of both the forums. 5. During the pendency of the petition, the informant entered his appearance to this Court and both the parties submitted that they have in fact settled the matter outside the Court and the payment to the complainant/respondent has already been made and there is no any grievances against each other and as such a compromise deed has been executed without any pressure from any corner. 6. Pressing the aforesaid compromise, the petitioner has filed a separate affidavit along with the compromise deed and has prayed before this Court to accept the compromise accordingly. 7. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties as well as the learned Addl. P.P., Assam and perused the impugned judgments passed by both the forums. 8. 6. Pressing the aforesaid compromise, the petitioner has filed a separate affidavit along with the compromise deed and has prayed before this Court to accept the compromise accordingly. 7. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties as well as the learned Addl. P.P., Assam and perused the impugned judgments passed by both the forums. 8. It has been contended that the matter is of far back of 2009 and the accused/petitioner has compensated the complainant against the grievances raised, by paying all the amounts alleged to have misappropriated. 9. It has been noted that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge u/s.409 of the IPC against the petitioner, who being the Secretary (Head Master of the Sampora Pamua LP School), is alleged to have misappropriated the money/remuneration of the complainant. After going through the evidence on record and the findings thereof, it reveals that such a finding calls for no interference and the offence u/s.409 of the IPC is non-compoundable. 10. However, considering the submission made by the parties and taking into account to the fact that the grievances of the complainant has been fully compensated by the accused/petitioner, which was in terms of money and by now they are living a peaceful life and in view of the mutual settlement between the parties, severe punishment under the aforesaid Section of Law appears to be not warranted. The petitioners is also stated to be working as the Head Master of an L.P. School and he has a future with his family and his children and severe sentence will jeopardize his service career and by this time, the complainant has already got the relief. 11. Considering all the entity of the matter, while maintaining the conviction u/s.409 of the IPC, the petitioner is hereby released u/s.3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, with a direction to maintain peace and tranquility in the locality in the near future and he will abstain himself from repeating such conduct again. 12. With the observation and findings thereof, the revision petition stands disposed of. 13. Return back the LCR along with a copy of judgment.