7 IUlllllllIHll“HUM W CF000005730 'AMN 0‘.V ¢ - ‘fa‘w‘E :: p 3W! WT? *fh‘m‘ m am gm‘ m rrem —37 E‘fWrfvTi'f’a— arm—W 311 airaw u argwm:_ >§ ' ‘ . & 3%? m W 9m? m aner a Wank: m1- 378g33 waWkW$W§$mrfwmmuwr 37agtg w a01%0H0 173 i e ‘/7 ?’a (a? 31mm mfa WT 1+09 y}: ¢ é 21T001°a0 I (I) r QAAV MM imc W 1 . 9 @ “I{ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench q C“oram : Hon’ble Shri Dilig Raosaheb Deghmukh & Hon’ble Shri Raieshwar La'l Jhgnwar,JJ. Criminai ggge-a'i No.43011990 IiEation for leave to a eai under Section 37§ 3 and criminal a29eal against iudgment of acguittal under Section 37811 ) of Cr.P.C., r 1973. Present :- Shri N Naha Roy, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State. Shri Ashok Verma, counsel for the respondent. _oj__AL JUDGMENI V (Passed on this day of 29‘“ day of April, 2009 The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Dilip Ra‘osaheb Deshmukh, J. Heard. (2) This criminal appeal is directed against the‘fjudgment dated 22-09—1 989 delivered in Criminal Case No.1 87184 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker, District Bastar whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) Brief facts are that,at the relevant period, the respondent was posted as Assistant Teacher and pay disbursement lncharge at Primary School, Kanker. Audit was conducted by the Audit Party from the office of Accountant General, Gwalior, MP. which revealed various irregularities era G' i LJ// Appiicant Smte of Madhya Pradesh App‘eilant § yi RespondentlAccused ‘ Arun Kumar S/o Madhukar Lal Shrivastava, Aged 37 years, Resident of Govindpur, Thana Kanker. a a} 5 a r §w v w f manm: wagNNEBmE8 5¢ Ezw a mm.£.ooQ.v<5o Homuozaaa. 3.x. mx.w-N émm 5&3 c< #:w Ewan»macomgo:030m: Xmaxwna: 3.3- Amww. 2am.ooaEgmo:ca§<mmaumaoPEmuczgma émm 23353. 3v .25 amuozagn ”£53 a6 as:mzaEmmaaa 5:833. . 2 5 Eomg ac: mxmaiwa mm. Bug mm 3 £5339 .2. Emvcanwa.8 :o msaw: ¢ m:a E38. 4:0 men.” Eva:ca=5 >ono§$=n 09.53.. 92m: . c . gag?» 3&3: 3 s53:=5 Eomgcao: smm 3:33. émm no"Eo<ma _u . g 5m qowmocao . #5 >aaao=m_ 035*.EgEm. gmnwm§$a 3E ‘5 ovwom‘amm 3w? ..m£§m§$§a§m3mg& %&§£amm§aa&%aw@.§ag $§§§§§3§§ §§ i%§§i&£§§»§$ §§§$£¢w§g¢&a§§§ ag§§§§mmmm gaa§m& a§£ggn&§w§g.w@%§ %§§§§.§$g§w §§§%§$S§%gw_ §§$4aww§w§§§§ §$§§§gwggwy aag§a%%£§@%§ gmm§§a§£a§%§$§» g§a§§§g¢s§§ igwma4m£iw§$§z §$§@a§§$§was&§ QW§§£§§gag§ §§i§§$§$§amw§ gaggigdwgaAgg $§§§£§§g§gmqam g§§3§§a£Q¢$§ £§E¢£§W=§ II§3II§ _§o&ow§.m=13.439 “am “a ~8: $43 am §§§éw§$§§§ g§§agw§§&g $§g$§§§$§$§. wJaméaga—Egwmaamdaaw a~mw§gms§am§$§i M[ Wai1twm§$gmmm§$mm W$WW$mma€rtlw mmm$m#wwm%% mamzitftmm Hai' m$wMW%mq€rwm$ WWW?mwmWm—{Maa ~§MWWWW€$€W mWmmw§ I" (5) During the course oj arguments, Ieamed Panel Lawyer for the apSJantiState was not abte to demonstrate in any manner that the acquittal of the respondent of the charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was erroneous. Learned Panel Lawyer for the appeIlantlState fairly submitted that the audit report of the Accountant General, Gwalior. Madhya Pradesh on which the prosecution was founded. was not proved. (6) On the other hand, Shri Ashok Verma, learned counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment. (7) Having considered rival submissions, we have perused the record of Criminal Case No.187l84 as also the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. We are of the considered opinion that for the reasons mentioned in para 18 of the impugned judgment and also for not proving u. the audit report, acquittal of the respondent of the charge under Section we 409 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be faulted with. (8) ln the result, there is no merit in this appeal which ls accordingly -f dismissed LW - _ i Sd/- l . R.L. Jhanwar Judge r Sdl Drllp Raosahet; Deshmukh i1 , ' / Judge Tumane