Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Mandal vs State on 17 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26771]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 718/2011
Laxman Mandal s/O Parmeshwar Mandal, Aged 60 years, R/o
Duboli, District Baka (Baka) Bihari Thana Amarpur. At present at
Shahpura Kalingari Gate, District Bhilwara Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Borana
Mr. V.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 23/05/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 17/06/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. The petitioner was tried and convicted for committing an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by judgment dated 27.10.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, in Criminal Regular Case No. 212/2001 (533/98). He was sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment.
2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 153/2010, the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.07.2011 reappreciated the evidence on record and found no illegality in the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Consequently, the conviction of the (Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:26:33 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:26771] (2 of 3) [CRLR-718/2011] petitioner was upheld however, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court was modified and it was directed that if the appellant deposits ₹7,000/- with the Trial Court within a period of one month, the period already undergone by him would be treated sufficient for the purpose of sentence. It was further made clear that if the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court would become operative.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused both the judgments as well as the record of the case. Upon careful consideration, I am of the opinion that the amount of ₹7,000/- was indeed found to be deficient in the public record. The property in question was entrusted to the petitioner, who was under a legal obligation to maintain proper accounts. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner, seeking to justify the deficiency on the basis of a presumed common understanding or lack of accounting, cannot be accepted.
3.1. A public servant is duty bound to maintain accurate and complete records of every single item, whether large or small, in a register or any other official record maintained in the office. Misappropriation or defalcation of public funds or property by a public servant is a grave matter and cannot be condoned. 3.2. The learned Appellate Court has already taken a lenient view by modifying the sentence and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the amount in lieu of further imprisonment. I find no valid ground to interfere with the said judgment. However, taking a further lenient view, the petitioner is granted liberty to deposit the amount of ₹7,000/- within a period of 90 days from (Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:26:33 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:26771] (3 of 3) [CRLR-718/2011] today, if the same has not already been deposited. It is made clear that if the amount is deposited within this extended period, the petitioner shall not be required to undergo the sentence awarded by the Trial Court failing which, the order of sentence of the trial Court shall be rejuvenated automatically.
4. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J 1-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:26:33 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)