Chandigarh court upholds 3-yr jail sentence of ex-govt employee

The court of Additional Session Court, Chandigarh, has upheld three years imprisonment of a former employee of Haryana Government arrested in a cheating case registered six years ago.

Sanjay Chandel, the employee, had filed an appeal against the judgment dated September 18, 2019, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, whereby he was convicted under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

The police had registered the FIR against Sanjay on February 16, 2010, on a complaint filed by PK Das, the then state project director, Haryana Prathmik Shiksha Priyojna Parishad. The latter had reported that during the reconciliation of accounts of passbook and book balance, it was found that some cheques had not been issued for official purpose, nor any voucher was found in the records.

An inquiry was made at the Punjab National Bank, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, and Union Bank of India Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, and it was found that a cheque for Rs 6,26,986 and another cheque of Rs 22,52,218 had been credited in the account in the name of Sanjay, who was working as employee of the parishad in the accounts branch. He alleged that Sanjay had stolen the cheque from the accounts section. He forged the signatures of two employees and got the cheque amounting to Rs 31,25,583 in his bank account.

During the investigation, the accused was arrested. After finding a prima facie case, the accused was chargesheeted. However, the trial court held the accused guilty and convicted him for commission of offences. After hearing the arguments the session court said that the appeal was partly allowed and the convict was acquitted for commission of offences. However, his appeal against conviction under Section 420 of the IPC stands dismissed.

The accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years, besides a fine of Rs 500 under Section 420 of the IPC. The court said that the accused was not entitled to be released on probation for good conduct.