GANGA RAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) The appellant, Ganga Ram, was working as a village Postman at Porsa in District Morena in the State of Madhya Pradesh from July 1962 to May 1964. Fateh Singh PW 2 was the Postmaster in-charge of that Post Office. It is not disputed that on November 14, 1963 three money orders were entrusted to the appellant along with four bearing letters and a sum of Rs. 90-30 for delivering the money covered by the money orders, the details of which were as follows:

(3.) The State appealed to the High Court. The High Court considered the evidence of Fateh Singh PW 2, the Postmaster, as also all the other witnesses and the documentary evidence which was produced at the trial. Fateh Singh P. W. 2 had stated that the appellant never reported himself on duty on November 18, 1963. In fact according to him he was absent from November 14, 1963 to November 21, 1963. According to the High Court the testimony of Fateh Singh was supported by the entries in the Error Book Exhibit P. 7 and Exhibit P. 10 as well as the report made by Fateh Singh on November 21, 1963, which was submitted to the Inspector of Post Offices. The High Court relied on the evidence of Harbilas Singh P. W. 3, a postman at Porsa at the material time and the evidence of Lakhansingh PW 5. All that Lakhansingh had stated was that Ganga Ram had approached him with the request that he should ask the Postmaster to give him his salary and thereupon he requested the Postmaster in this behalf but the Postmaster told him that the appellant had yet to account for Rs. 91/- given to him in connection with the money orders and, therefore, his pay could not be given to him. Ganga Ram, the appellant, did not at that time allege that he had already returned the amount of Rs. 91/- to the Postmaster. According to the High Court, if there had been any truth in the defence of Gangaram that he had paid all the money to the Postmaster on November 18, 1963 he was bound to have made a good deal of noise about it and told everybody that the Postmaster was refusing to sign the relevant entries in the Book. PW 10 is another witness on which the High Court relied. That witness stated that in his presence the Postmaster had said that Ganga Ram had to account for a sum of Rs. 91.50 on account of money orders and in cross-examination he further stated that Ganga Ram kept quiet and did not protest and say that the amount in question was not due from him. It is not necessary to refer to all other evidence on which reliance was placed. As regards the entries in the Postman's Book Exhibit P. 5, the High Court pointed out that the appellant had admitted that the Book had remained with him till November 22, and was seized from him when he was placed under suspension. The High Court came to be conclusion that the appellant had not reported himself to the Postmaster on November 18, 1963 and had not handed over the amount in question to him. Nor he had asked him to acknowledge the receipt thereof in the Postman's Book. The High Court considered it significant that in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, other than Fateh Singh, no questions were asked on this point.