GANESHBHAI SANKARBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was acquitted by the Trial Court of offences under Sections 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, Harivallabh, Secretary of the Go-Samvardhan Samiti, where the appellant was working at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, obtained leave and filed an appeal. The High Court allowed the appeal, reversed the acquittal by convicting him of the offences with which he was charged and sentenced him on each count to four months rigorous imprisonment. This appeal is by Special Leave against that judgment.

(2.) The prosecution case is that it was the duty of the appellant to purchase and sell hides and skins on behalf of the Go-Samvardhan Samiti, maintain kachha and pakka account books, prepare bills and vouchers etc. In the course of his duty, the appellant is alleged to have sold to one Nandram 85 hides @ 26.50 per hide though in fact he purported to seel them @ 24.00 each and thereby misappropriated Rupees 212.50. When the misappropriation came to light he was questioned and it is said that he wrote a letter Ex. 18 admitting his guilt, which of course he denied. The case of the appellant was that he was appointed only to write account books and not to buy or sell hides, as such he denied both the misappropriation and the falsification of the Bills. According to him, Vrijlal Parkeh, Iman and Rathod employees of the Samiti, were is charge of the main centre of the Samiti at Khalipur as also the sub-centres thereof since the time the samiti was started, suggesting thereby that the misappropriation may have taken place during the management of these persons. The Magistrate held that the accused was appointed as a Supervisor; his duties were to be in charge of the business of the Samiti, write account books, bills, vouchers etc. He was entrusted with the stock-in-trade and the moneys of the samiti, and that he acted as the agent, wrote letters to Nandram as executive head of the Samiti. The Magistrate, however, held that the appellant had not personal knowledge of the dealings with Nandram, that Nandram wanted to oblige Rathod and Iman, that the complainant had no personal knowledge of the transactions entered into by the accused as he was staying at Gowadi Ashram and that he had no personal knowledge of the hand-writing of Ex. 44 or 47 and the payment made thereunder relating to the dealings with Nadram. He also held that letter Ex. 18 contained an extrajudicial confession which was made to persons in authority but did not give a finding that the confession was the result of the threat, inducement or promise from a person in authority, In the result he acquitted the accused of the charges.

(3.) The High Court agreed with the trial Court that the evidence clearly disclosed that the accused had been entrusted with the moneys, stock-in-trade and was in overall charge of the business activities of the Samiti at Khalipur and Karannager and as a Supervisor was actually handling its business from day to day as an agent of the Samiti. Though the kachha accounts were not produced, from the pakka accounts it was held that they were written by the accused and the entry in the pakka day book may have been written by Rudrakant at the instance of the accused. It further held that the complainant knew the signatures and hand-writing of the accused and that Exs. 44, 45 and 47 were signed by the accused the Nandram, that Imam and Rathod were not there at the time when the transaction was entered into by the accused with Nandram, that Satish or Vrijlal were not in charge of the day to day business at Khalipur and that Ex. 18 confession was made by him voluntarily and was true. In this view the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused.