STATE Vs. MUDAKAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have time and again had occasion to make observations with regard to this one set of litigation that is recurrently coming up to the High Court regarding misappropriation of funds belonging to the Co-operative Societies Acts of misappropriation are rampant and after a lapse of considerable time some official or the other and usually the secretary or the Treasurer or Manger is prosecuted before the Trail Court. The evidence is voluminous because it concerns records, vouchers, bills and the like and since the accused is on bail, these cases invariably take 10 to 20 years usually to be disposed off. In the present instance also, the incident is dated 9. 5. 1974 and the case was finally disposed off on 11. 11. 2002 after about 28 years. The State has now filed an appeal against acquittal.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel has submitted that offences of this type must be firmly dealt with as otherwise acquittal orders only encourage the culprits. Undoubtedly, this position is true. He has also submitted that irrespective of the dispute as to whether the amount involved is Rs. 4,000/- or Rs. 741=10, that the offence is established and that the acquittal was unjustified. He submits that there is no doubt about the fact that the accused was the Secretary of the society at the relevant time and that therefore the culpability is established.

(3.) AS is the position in almost all of such cases we find that the investigation in this case is thoroughly worthless and the presentation before the trial Court is even worse than that. There is total confusion on facts and the result is that we have two distinct versions not only with regard to the amount but with regard to whether at all there was entrustment to the accused and more importantly whether the act of wrongful conversion has been established. With this record, it would be totally impossible to sustain a conviction and we see no ground on which we can interfere with the order of acquittal we do agree with the learned GA who has done his very best, that this class of offences requires to be severely dealt with but for that, there has got to be a competent, professional investigation and a good presentation of the prosecution evidence establishing the charge when alone a conviction is possible. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed.