( 1 ) AFTER admission of present revision application on 8. 9. 1999 and order dated 9. 9. 1999 to release the petitioner on bail, the petition does not appear to have once been attended either by the petitioner or his learned advocate. Lastly, on 7. 3. 2007, order, as under, was passed:

"none present for petitioner even as the matter was called out thrice. S. O. to 09. 3. 2007 in the interest of justice. Matter may be heard and disposed on that date, even if learned advocate does not care to appear in the matter. "

The hearing has twice been adjourned even thereafter and, today, the matter was called out twice during the course of the day, but no one was present on behalf of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has, in effect, challenged the judgment and order of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Criminal Case No. 5202 of 1992 convicting him for the offence punishable under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 3000/- and three months of simple imprisonment, in case of default; and the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sentence.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petition, specific charge pertaining to entrustment of money was not framed, panchnama by which muddamal currency was recovered was not properly proved, accused was working under the command of assistant accountant and no witness had produced account dated 5. 8. 1991 to show and suggest that the amount of rupees two lakhs was misappropriated. Additional grievance about not sending the relevant documents to handwriting expert in view of section 45 of the Evidence Act is also made in the petition.

( 4 ) PERUSING the impugned judgments, it was noticed that the petitioner was alleged to have been, on 5. 8. 1991, during his service as a clerk in the bank, entrusted the sum of rupees two lakhs for depositing into another bank and that amount was misappropriated by the petitioner. The essential facts were proved by oral testimony of assistant manager at Ex. 11 and, even after extensive cross-examination, no discrepancy was found. Another witness examined at Ex. 23 clearly deposed that the petitioner was working as a clerk under him and the work of depositing rupees two lakhs was entrusted by him to the petitioner after preparing voucher in his own handwriting and, after entrusting the sum to the petitioner, the cashier had obtained signature of the petitioner on the back-side of the voucher. Upon finding that the amount was not deposited in the bank, enquiry was made at the house of the petitioner and he was not found. Therefore, police complaint was filed.

( 5 ) AFTER extensive reference to the evidence on record, the trial court has recorded the finding of fact that the offence punishable under section 408 of the IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt and it was not a fit case for granting to the petitioner the benefit of probation. The petitioner had sought to agitate the issues of proof of his signature on the back-side of the voucher and absence of any eye-witness to the incident of conversion by the petitioner of money to his own use. And, the findings of fact recorded by the trial court were, after perusal of the record and referring to specific oral and documentary evidence, confirmed by the appellate court.

( 6 ) THE petitioner has not, either in the petition or by making any oral submission, made out any ground to even remotely indicate that the findings of fact were perverse. He appears to have relied upon reiteration of the same grounds which were agitated before the appellate court. Thus, in short, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order confirming conviction and sentence and, therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed as having no substance.

( 7 ) A disturbing fact requires to be noted before parting with the judgment. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner was confirmed by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document