IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2214 of 2004 Date of Decision 10.11.2010 Madan Mohan ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.J.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 21.09.2004 passed by the Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 30.07.2003, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each under Sections 465 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Sections 420, 467 and 468 read with Section 34 IPC. Heard. There is overwhelming evidence on the record to prove the charges against the accused Madan Mohan. The prime evidence is his admission Mark-D, which came into existence at the time when he was confronted with regard to the embezzlement. He had agreed to deposit the amount and ultimately he deposited a sum of Rs.75,750/-. Surjit Singh (PW5), the then Principal of the School, has also stated that 30 persons were present when the accused wrote undertaking Mark-B. Pritpal Singh (PW7), Criminal Revision No.2214 of 2004 -2- who had got the case registered, has also stated that the accused had confessed having embezzled the amount vide writing Mark-B in his own hand. The accused has not examined any expert to get the writing Mark-B compared with his own hand writing. The other circumstance which goes a long way to establish the charge is that the accused had refused to give his specimen writing as well as signatures for comparison on the pay slips and counterfoils. Thus, the inference would be drawn against him is that he was deputed to deal the accounts in the bank and various documents including the pay slips and counterfoils bore his signatures and he could easily get those signatures compared with his specimen signatures but what to talk of providing specimen signatures to the police, he did not examine any expert in defence. Pritpal Singh (PW7) in order to prove the duty of the accused has also testified that by a letter Ex.PW7/101, the accused was deputed to perform the duties in connection with the bank accounts, as such, it is established beyond doubt that it was only the accused who has been dealing with the bank accounts. Both the Courts below have reached the consistent findings of fact that the accused had embezzled the amount of Rs.2,74,000/- and he had also deposited Rs.75,750/- out of the same. Even otherwise no such illegality much less irregularity has come to the surface from where it could be held that the judgments are perverse and against the facts. Re-appreciation of evidence at this revisional stage is not permissible. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 10.11.2010 mamta-II