DES RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Harayana High Court dismissing the revision petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and confirming the conviction and sentences of the appellant Des Raj under S. 406, I.P.C.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the State has not been able to explain why none of the officials of the Society was authorised to draw the money and why the appellant was chosen to receive the money from the Bank. It appears that the Secretary of the Society, Mahnga Ram had authenticated a copy of the resolution. According to the Manager of the Bank, the Secretary of the Society, Mahnga Ram, had accompanied the appellant when the payment was made to him in the Bank and also attested the signatures of the persons on the Management of the Co-operative Society. The resolution does not contain any instructions as to what the appellant had to do with the money but according to the President of the Society the appellant had to pay the money to the Cashier, Balbir Singh, who would make the entry in the accounts. Balbir Singh, unfortunately, is dead. On 23rd of December, 1963 a notice was sent by the Sub Inspector of the Co-operative Society, Banga, to the appellant stating that he had withdrawn Rs. 4,000/- on 28-8-1963 but had not got the amount so received entered in the books of the Society, and an explanation was called for. In his reply dated Junuary 9, 1964, the appellant stated that as per instructions of the Commitee he had given the amount to Shri Mahnga Ram, Secretary of the Society, and he did not know as to whether the aforesaid amount was entered in the books or not. He said that it was only on the receipt of the notice that he had come to know that the entries regarding this amount had not been made. He said that the money was paid to Secretary, Mahnga Ram, in the presence of Sarwan Ram, Piara Singh and Satnam Singh at the repair shop of Sarwan Ram. On January 31, 1964, the Sub-Inspector called upon the appellant to produce written proof in support of these two statements viz., about the instructions of the Committee and regarding the payment of the amount to the Secretary .