1NTHE HIGH COURT OF JIUDICATUIIE AT BILASPUR; c^..^..-^ ^""c'^t ^--"^ate CHHATTISGARH '-&-QJE~20l c^nof ^d5/-%<3/6 CRIMINAL APPEAL N&._OF 2003 ^r^- Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through: Statlon House Officer P.S. Keshkal, Distt. Kanker VERSUS Respondent Non-Applicant Chandulal S/o Jansingh Gonda Aged about 55 years R/o Hatkarra, Distt. Kanker North Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 'APPLICATION ROR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378IS) AND MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378finbF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 fArisina out of Judament dated 7.K2003 oassed bv Second Additional Sessions Judae fFTCI, North Bastar. kanker in Criminal Aopeal No. 39/95CState of chhattisaarh Vs. Chandulal aaainst the order dated 4.5.95"passed bv the Additional Chief Judicial Maaistrate, North Bastar, kanker in Criminal Case No. 229/83- State of Chhattisaarh Vs. Chandulall ^•'iE=- T sii^i qn R-fltti Ti^ET •Sflff^T sf>*(iq» .^. ^ TST •<fl<41M<), ®Tll-H'i|<o, fs(C1l'yy,< ...^.^.^.....IAX)....A?.^..!^ SiI^T 'V^: (^fy^) ?^nw ^ifet SII^T SB : Hon bSe Shri iBianindra Fvloi' 22-10-2010 onn ousnii uuuey, uovemi Heard on appiication for grc Learnea counsei T0i~ ine pe i-.oun conviciea ine non-appiic'di 408 iPC, the lower appeliate Cour Learned counsel for the c reiiaDie eviaence on recora wiin i teieDhone bills to the resDondent concerneu aeRanmeni Tor w'nicn gimourit againsi vanous iBiepnone uiiis 'wers coiieciea. Learned counsei for the iov»er appeiiani uouii nas Sureshchandra (PW3), Suresh K deposeu that ihey had deposited ne ineir narne wim ine resDonaeni. R.B. ehaudhary (FvV1) and uovj 'w'nen me cnesi Kepi in ine i-osi deposited against the disputed bii] insi ine eviQynce leoi Dy ine pfos^cuiiou breach of trust. 1 nave perusea ine oraer p| i-oun as aiso ine recoras. i ne iearnea lo'w'er appeiiai particuiany ine ev'aence OT r-s.o <ftra^f'4ll '^R?TfT? "fe^ •tf^t^K ^affiCTsii^T an aririvastava. j. rient Aciv'ocate ror ine Staie/ petitionei'. ini OT ieave 10 appeai. piioner aryuea inai inougn ine learnsa i nai f. ror conriiTiission OT oTTence unaer .secuon f acquitieci me appeiiant in appeai. ietiiioner suumiis inai inere is coyeni ana pgai'Q to payrnent OT rnoney' agains! vanous ^nd 'non deDosit of the saiu amount vv'ith the ^eiiiioner Tunner suDmiis iriai ine ieamea wrongiy aisuetieveu ine lesumony OT yrnar (PVV4) and Jaisukh (PA'5) vsfho ha'v'e rnone'y' againsi leiepnone uiiis si.anainy in Tuuner suumiis inai rrorn ine eviaence OT ina (vanungo i,i-w^;, 11 is aiso proveu inai Office was opened, the aniourit said to be s vyere not founu. Learned counsei subrnitS icution, thus, proved the offence of cnrninai assed by the lo'vyer appeliant Court and triai 3 ^ouu aTter examiriing e'viQencs on recoru unauanary' {i-w'i) ana uiovinu rs.anungo ,S°II5R,B?-iT<FrR—FS/147—2/2010—1,00,000. '3^f 'qi<l|(n<l, ©Tliy'Ko,fsioi+l^ >. t^O. >4°>1 /|T> SII^T W ft-fi°t> '(WT SIT^T ^)ili<?* \- sn^r ^R3!: (1pf3^q) ir-wz/, ouresncnanara (,rvvo}, o r<urnai ^rvv'-fr; sncs ^sisuKn <[P'¥VOJ leiepnone uiiis uoes noi ins; tjr&SFi r\urfiSr (rVV4} ^Hu JSiSUKH (rVvb) lias istimonv of SuTeshchandi'a (PW3i, Suresh parocuiariy wnen ine prosecuuon prove that the receipts contairi IF the prosecution has also faliad Lf v»ith the duty of coiiection of tele nas aiso neiu tnat mere is no ev ine amouni aiiegea 10 ue coiieciei tfty leiepnone uepyr',meni ana ir prosecuuon in inai regara, esssni unaer oeciion 4uy ir-ij is noi prov ne Tinuings recoraeu piausiuie ana possiDie. i aKing ir< leaa any' e'vicience wnaisoever io| teleDhone bllis vi/ere not recelvedl inere is no repon 01 me nana'ifl receipis OT paymeni, no case TOF g i ny cipyiiGciuon i5 oijnseQUl ct>l^[<t<fhl 'RPT?ff Tf Jfe1E^t Xf^'^R ^sffim aii^i fr?-. -- vi/iin regara 10 oeposii or rfiuney againsi me e cormQence @nu cannoi D<& Deiieveci, nas noi proaueeu any expen e'viaence 10 e sEynaiure OT E'esponoeoi ariQ Tuiinef wv&i ufove inai ine i'espoFEQe'ni was ^nifusieci pnone uiiis. Leameu lower appeiiaie ijouii Idence ied b'y" the prosecution to prove that i arnunusi vanous uiiis was noi ueposiie'u in me aDsence 01 ari'y' eviaence iaiu uy ine [iai .ingreoieni or pomrnission 01 orfence eu. • ine loamea lo'wer 3DDeii@s;© L^OUH ars EO consiaerauun inai ine prosecu'uon aiu noi srio'w tl"i3t tliiS sniount ayainst tne ciisputed' D¥IH& T©iCTpnorieciEssiTrr^ni; anci aiso insi ''iiing expen: reyaroiny rssponoefu issUiHg ani oi leeve 10 appeai r-s nresu^ UUL pniiV aisrnisseu. Sd/- ManmdraMoh^Shrivastava Judge »11(1'(1< ^sfh tlli»ll«W,<RFi?<PIH~--FS;147—2/201»—l ,00,000.