IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 517 of 2000 Date of decision: 27.09.2010 __________________________________________________________________ The State of H.P. .....Appellant. Versus Sita Ram. .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate, Amicus Curiae. R.B. Misra, J (Oral). Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate, has been requested to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of accused-respondent and she has kindly agreed to the same. Accordingly, Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate, has assisted this Court on behalf of accused-respondent in response to the submissions made by Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General, for the appellant-State. 2. The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2000, passed by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Police Challan No. 60-2 of 1995, acquitting the alleged accused-respondent under Sections 409, 468, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in reference to FIR No. 16 of 1992 dated 27.01.1992, P.S. Rohru. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 17.05.1995, accused- respondent Sita Ram had shown a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to have been sent to Sub Post Officer, Rohru, however, same was never received at Sub Post Office, Rohru. As such, accused-respondent has temporarily misappropriated the government amount to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- from 17.05.1991 to 11.11.1991, as such, accused-respondent was alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences. In this respect FIR was lodged and after completion of the investigation, accused- respondent was charged for the aforesaid offences and he was tried in the court. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses, whereas, accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 5. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohru, has acquitted the accused-respondent, inter alia, on the ground that proper sanction of the competent authority was not obtained to prosecute, whereas according to the settled law, the offences in question was not committed by the accused-respondent during the discharge of his official duty, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nath Singh, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 372. 6. It is also pertinent to note that through the temporary ...3... embezzlement of Rs. 10,000/- allegedly made by the accused- respondent, however, the said amount stood deposited by the accused- respondent subsequently on 12.11.1991, as such, the affect of allegation is mitigated. 7. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and the material on record, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused-respondent and we do not find any scope of interference in the judgment of the trial court. Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. 8. The Court appreciate the efforts made by Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate, in assisting the Court on behalf of accused-respondent as Amicus Curiae. (R.B. Misra) Judge (V.K. Sharma) Judge 27th September, 2010 (virender)