STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.H. VEERABHADREGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocates who represent the Respondent -accused on merits. The charge against the original accused was that in his capacity of office bearer of the Society in question, that he was responsible for two acts of misappropriation, the first of them being that when he handed over charge, he had failed to account for 1144 empty bags valued at Rs. 4,576/ - and that consequently, it was presumed that he had misappropriated either the bags or the proceeds thereof. The second head of charge was that he had failed to credit an amount of Rs. 2,707/ - to the account of one K. Dharmappa and consequently the prosecution alleged that he was guilty of misappropriation of a total sum of Rs. 7,283/ -. The Trial Court has after careful consideration of the evidence on record acquitted the accused and it is against this order of acquittal that the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) THE learned Additional State Public Prosecutor pointed out to us that this is one more of the number of cases where an official of a Co -operative Society has been hauled up for misdemeanor and that merely because these cases take a long time or in some instances the amounts are not very large, that the sympathy aspect weighed heavily in favour of the accused and that they are acquitted on technical grounds. He submits that the period in this case had been definite, the fact that the accused was the office bearer during that period of time is admitted, the Audit Report establishes the defalcation and that a straight conviction ought to have been recorded which has not been done. We have therefore reexamined the record and heard the learned Advocates on both sides for purposes of deciding whether the order of acquittal is required to be disturbed.

(3.) THE learned Advocates who represent the accused then brought it to our notice that as regards the cash amount of Rs. 2,707/ - is concerned, that this particular amount was the subject matter of an earlier transaction in CC No. 2462 of 1980 which is admitted. The accused had been tried in that case in respect of this charge and an order of acquittal passed in his favour and the submission is that in the light of this order there can be no second prosecution in respect of the same charge on the same set of facts. Apart from the fact that there was a delay of 4 years in filing the charge sheet which would be fatal to the prosecution, we need to uphold the plea canvassed on behalf of the accused because this is a case in which in the face of an order of acquittal there would be no second prosecution on the same set of facts. The principle of autrefois acquit would apply and a second prosecution would be a bar as long as the earlier acquittal order was undisturbed. We also need to reiterate the fact that the present prosecution would be a clear infringement of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy in criminal proceedings. The defence is therefore justified in pleading this bar.