MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1961 Ravi Datt Joshi was the Assistant District Inspector of Schools at Karnal and the appellant Was then working under him as a clerk. Between March to December 1961, Joshi authorised the appellant to draw certain amounts form the State Bank of India , Karnal. Accordingly, on March 11, 1961, the appellant drew Rs. 979.12 for payment to M/s. Joti Pershad Gupta and Sons. On March 31, 1961, he drew a further sum of Rs. 1,449.38 out of which Rs. 1,404 were to be paid to the Indian Red Cross Society. He made an entry in the cash book showing as if that amount was paid to the said Society and got that entry initialled by Joshi. On July 3, 1961, he encashed a bill for Rs. 424, the amount being payable to two teachers, Ishwar Datt and Chand Ram. The appellant made an entry in the acquittance roll showing as if he had paid Rs. 200 to Chand Ram. On November 15, 1961 he received Rs. 281.15 in respect of arrears of salary of one teacher, Harbhajan Kaur and on December 2, 1961, he received Rs. 42.66 and Rs. 494, the first amount being the salary of Ram Sarup, another teacher and the other, as contingent fund payable to the staff. None of these amounts was paid to any of the aforesaid persons for payment to whom they were received by him. On M/s. Joti Pershad Gupta and Sons complaining to Joshi that the amount due to them was not paid, Joshi looked into the matter and finding that that amount and other amounts were embezzled, he lodged a complaint before the Police. The police thereupon registered a case under S. 409 against the appellant and under Ss. 409, 465, 477-A and S. 120-B of the Penal Code against Joshi. The trial Magistrate convicted Joshi and the appellant under S. 120-B and under S. 409 for criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 3,414.53 and also under S. 477-A and awarded different sentences and fines directing the sentences to run concurrently. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Joshi of all the charges. He also acquitted the appellant on charges under S. 120-B and S. 477-A but upheld his conviction under S. 409. The appellant filed a revision in the High Court where he conceded that the aforesaid amounts were received by him from the Bank but pleaded that he had handed them over to Joshi and it was Joshi's duty to disburse those amounts and to maintain accounts as Joshi was incharge of the office. The High Court held that the said moneys having been admittedly received by the appellant, the burden of proof was upon him to show what he had done with them, that there being no evidence that he handed them over to Joshi except his bare allegation, the appellant had failed to discharge the burden and was, therefore, rightly convicted under s. 409. The High Court relied upon the evidence of Sukhminder Singh, the District Inspector of Schools that the appellant had confessed before him that out of the said sum of Rs. 3,414.53 he had misappropriated Rs. 2,500 and that Joshi had misappropriated the balance of Rs. 979 and that the appellant was prepared to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,500. The evidence of the District Inspector of Schools also was relied upon as showing that when approached for the payment, the appellant had falsely represented to M/s. Joti Pershad Gupta and Sons and the Assistant Secretary of the Red Cross Society that he had remitted to them the two amounts payable to them.

(2.) Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the trial suffered from misjoinder of charges, that Joshi being the drawing and disbursing officer, it was he and not the appellant who was responsible for the said misappropriation, that he had applied to the trial Magistrate for production of certain documents, that those documents were not produced and that he was prejudiced by the said non-production as he could have shown from those documents that he had handed over the said amounts to Joshi as Joshi was the officer responsible for disbursements. The High Court rejected these contentions and on merits accepted the finding both of the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant had misappropriated the said amounts and dismissed the revision. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Mr. Mehta for the appellant first contended that the High Court erred in proceeding with the case beyond reasonable doubt that he had handed over the said moneys to Joshi. In support of his contention he relied upon Woolmington vs. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1935 AC 462, and argued that if the appellant could show that his case was reasonably probable and could cast a doubt on the prosecution case that would be enough to entitle him to the benefit of reasonable doubt. There was, however, no question on the appellant raising any reasonable doubt in view of (a) his admission that he had received the said moneys, (b) the evidence of the District Inspector of Schools that he had confessed before him of having misappropriated Rs. 2,500 at least and was prepared to deposit the said amount, and (c) the evidence as to his false representations to M/s. Joti Pershad Gupta and Sons and the Assistant Secretary of the Red Cross Society that moneys due to them had already been remitted. But the argument of Mr. Mehta was that he could have raised a doubt on the prosecution evidence if the documents called for by the appellant had been produced and his application for their production had not been rejected.