news details |
|
|
| Accused challenges conviction facing trial for 30 years | | HC reduced sentence enhances fine | |
JAMMU, APRIL 26
Jammu and Kashmir High Court in an interesting case, has partly set- aside the judgment of the Trial Court , party allowed the appellant’s appeal and acquitted him of the charge under section 467 RPC and also took serious note of acquittal of BMO.
The accused-appellant, facing investigation and trial for last 30 years was convicted on June 4, 1986 by Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu u/s 467 RPC r/w section 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of PC Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine Rs 1000 which was challenged by the accused in the High court by filling a criminal appeal.
According to the case accused-appellant Suraj Parkash Mishra who was the accounts clerk/cashier in the office of Block Medical Officer Samba prepared two vouchers and drew Rs 3700 from the Treasury in 1977. These fraudulent withdrawals were initially detected by the Office of Accountant General and thereafter case was registered by the VOJ and after completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court of law. Court on July 21, 1984 framed the charges against Mishra and Dr. Abdul Majid, the then BMO Samba and on June 4, 1986 Court convicted Suraj Parkash and acquitted Dr. Abdul Majid, the then BMO.
Justice YP Nargotra of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, Jammu wing, today partly set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and party allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused of the charge u/s 467 RPC and took serious note of the acquittal of BMO and said that simple explanation of an accused charged for the offence of forgery that he acted bona fide without establishing his disability to know the contents of the document, he signs, is not a valid defence in law to charge of forgery. Trial Court, therefore, erred in law for acquitting accused Dr. Abdul Majid BMO and for convicting the appellant alone for forgery.
In the 20 pages approved for reporting judgment Justice Nargotra ,after hearing Advocate PN Raina appearing for the appellant and Additional Advocate General Mr. BS Salathia appearing for the state, observed that the Trial Court has awarded five years rigorous imprisonment to the accused with a fine of Rs 1000 for the offence under section 5(2) PC Act 2006, which in the view of the Court deserves to be reduced because during the lengthy period of investigation/ trial/ appeal, spreading about 30 years ,the appellant must have suffered a lot. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and he is acquitted of the charge u/s 467 RPC and the conviction of the appellant, however, u/s 5(2) PC Act 2006 is maintained but the sentence imposed shall be that he shall undergo RI for a period of six months with a fine of Rs 3700 and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall, undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. For computing the period of imprisonment, the appellant shall be entitled to set-off for the period, if any spent by him, as under trial prisoner during trial and appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
