IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.14 of 2002 Govind Lal Arya ………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal ..…. Opp. Party Sri A.D. Tripathi, Advocate for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/opposite party Dated: September 20, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This revision has been directed by the convict Govind Lal Arya against the concurrent finding of guilt arrived at by the learned C.J.M. Rudraprayag as well as by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag. Revisionist Govind Lal Arya, being a cashier-cum-clerk of District Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch Augustmuni, was chargesheeted for the offence of Section 409 IPC and was tried by the learned Magistrate. After the conclusion of trial, he was found guilty for the offence of section 409 IPC and was ordered to undergo three years’ R.I. nay the fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo one year’s additional imprisonment. This judgment was rendered by learned trial court on 28.1.2002. Revisionist preferred an appeal no.2/2002 against the said judgment and order of the Magistrate but the appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate was affirmed. After hearing the learned counsel of the revisionist as well as learned brief holder for the State, it appears that the revisionist was employed as the cashier-cum-clerk in the bank with Sri S.S. Bhandari working as the Branch Manager of the said bank. On 28.7.2001, the revisionist left the bank at 2 PM placing the key of the currency chest upon the table of 2 Manager Sri S.S. Bhandari asking that he will return within 20 minutes and then he will leave for his native place village Deval which is some around 100 kilometers away from the place Augustmuni where he was working. But the revisionist did not return at all and went to his village Deval straightway from there. Revisionist neither moved any application for leave or station leave nor handed over the charge of the entire cash to the Manager in writing or any other day book or cash book, which he was supposed to hand over to the Manager of the bank. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said bank, only the Manager S.S. Bhandari along with the clerk-cum- cashier, i.e. revisionist Govind Lal Arya was working as the total staff except a Guard, who is supposed to be on duty to protect the bank from the miscreants. Sri S.S. Bhandari kept himself busy in the Bank till 5 PM on that day in tallying the deposit and withdrawal. On 29.7.2001, being Sunday, it was the holiday. On 30.7.2001, the revisionist had to come on duty but he did not turn up till 10:30 AM. At the same time, there was a rush of customers, so the Manager Sri S.S. Bhandari was bound to run the bank and make transactions with the customers. In the evening, he found that the currency chest is running short of the amount of Rs.95,143/-. He made contact on telephone to his superior officers up to late evening of that day and after receiving the further instructions, the FIR could be lodged on 30.7.2001 at 23:30 hours. The investigation was conducted by the concerning police station Ukhimath and it was revealed that the amount was actually running short of Rs.95,143/-. 3 Learned counsel of the revisionist strived to show that this amount might have been embezzled by the Manager Sri Bhandari himself because both the keys of the currency chest were with him right from 2 PM of 28.7.2001 till 30.7.2001. This argument is not all tenable because Sri S.S. Bhandari had no other option but to keep both the keys with him, inasmuch as, he alone was a person responsible left, when the accused left the bank in such a reckless and irresponsible manner as stated above. Sri Bhandari was bound to make transactions with the bank customers on the next opening day of the bank, i.e. on 30.7.2001 and he was not in a position to lock the bank. It was the boundent duty of the accused/ convict to leave the bank after closing the cash book, tallying the same with the day book which entails the entire transactions with the customers, but he utterly failed in discharge of his duties and left the bank in a sheer, reckless and negligent manner. Fortiori, the letters in the writing of the accused/convict Govind Lal Arya, which are Ex.Ka-9 and Ka-11 respectively, are enough to show the guilt of the accused. He deposited Rs.43,143/- out of this amount accepting the embezzlement committed by him. Ex.Ka-11 written by the accused discloses that this amount was running short and noticed by the revisionist on 27.7.2001 itself. Since he was under transfer from Branch Augustmuni to that of Deval (native place of convict), so he realized his personal responsibility to deposit the same in the bank before proceeding on transfer. For making the arrangement of this much amount, he went to his home (Ghaniyal-Trikot) but could not manage the same and on 30.7.2001, he could not inform regarding his failure to arrive in the bank at proper time and thus, could come to attend his duties only on 31.7.2001. The learned trial court has rightly accepted this letter in the script of convict himself 4 because his signatures on Ex.Ka-9 and Ka-11 resemble with that on attendance sheet of the bank. It is the established principle of law that in revision, this Court is not supposed to re-appreciate the entire evidence scrupulously, which has already been re-appreciated in the first appellate court by the learned Sessions Judge. Having gone through the records, this Court is of the view that there is no material irregularity committed either by the trial court or by the appellate court in recording the guilt of the accused. So, this revision is liable to be dismissed on merits. Learned counsel for the revisionist has prayed that he has been deprived from the job of the bank and has been in caption for almost a year in this offence, so, in the above circumstances, the quantum of sentence may be reduced. Considering the above circumstances of the convict/ accused, the sentence of three years’ imprisonment is reduced to one year’s R.I. and in lieu of reduction of sentence of two years, the fine of Rs.3,000/- is enhanced to that of Rs.10,000/-. The period of caption which he has already undergone, will be adjusted after verifying the records. It is made clear that if the revisionist does not pay the fine, as has been modified by this Court within two months from today, then he will undergo the sentence in full, as awarded by the trial court. With the modification as above, the revision is partly allowed on the question of sentence while it is dismissed on merits. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 20.09.2011 Rajeev Dang