Jammu, Apr 23: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while deciding one of oldest appeals, has upheld the conviction of Mohd Sadiq, who was working as a salesman with Cooperative Society, Darhal and was booked under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 120-B RPC and 5(2) J&K Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Trial Court on 05.09.2005 convicted the accused of offence under Section 409 RPC and Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year in both the offences. In addition thereto, the appellant was also asked to pay fine of Rs one lakh for conviction under Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. Against this order present appeal was filed.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “it is manifestly clear that the prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of conversion or misappropriation by the accused of the property entrusted to him. Once it has been established that the appellant/accused had been entrusted with the stocks of the Society and the appellant is unable to render the account, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intent has to follow”.
“In the instant case, the appellant, while making his statement under Section 342 CrPC did not plead any defence nor did he state anything as regards the manner in which he has discharged his duty as a trustee of the stocks received by him. In fact, the appellant has, neither during cross examination of the witnesses nor in his statement under Section 342 CrPC taken the defence that he had paid the amount of sale proceeds as reflected in the two receipts executed by Mohd Yaqeen. He has not even disputed the assertion of Mohd Yaqeen that these receipts were only for Rs 5307and Rs 3800 and not for Rs 53070 and Rs 38000 either during cross examination of the witness or in his statement”, High Court said.
“In the face of this situation, the only inference that can be drawn is that the appellant/accused has misappropriated the stocks entrusted to him to the tune of Rs 1,59,652.23”, High Court said, adding “Special Judge, has, while passing the impugned judgment, meticulously analysed the evidence on record and has drawn correct conclusions which are backed by legally sound reasons”.
“There is, thus, no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the Special Judge. The appeals lack merit and as such, the same are dismissed. The appellant/accused is directed to surrender before the Special Judge Anti Corruption Jammu within a period of one month from today. His bail/surety bonds shall stand cancelled. In case, the appellant fails to surrender before the Special Judge, the necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be taken by the Special Judge for apprehending the appellant/accused”.
Nadeem Nadu (ندیم مختار) 