STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GANGADHARPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. On perusing the evidence and the judgment of the High court, we are of opinion that the High court has manifestly misread the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and this has vitiated the entire reasoning of the high court.

(2.) The respondent was a Marketing Inspector of Sambaipur municipality during the period from February 16, 196 8/01/1971. He was said to have realised Rs. 46,545.50 under 60 cash receipts issued by him towards rent from stall-holders and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 22,763.40 and fabricated false records to conceal the embezzlement. While the receipts issued to the licensees contained the full amounts remitted by them, in the counterfoils given to the office, lesser amounts were entered. Out of the 60 instances that were cited the prosecution was able to prove 36 instances where the counterfoils differed from the original receipts.

(3.) The trial court noticed that in Exs. 4 to 36 the respondent had issued receipts for higher amounts but in the corresponding counterfoils he had entered only lesser amounts.