STATE Vs. B GOVINDARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Karnataka has assailed the acquittal of the respondent-accused through the present appeal. According to the prosecution, the accused was the honorary Secretary of the Bangalore City Silk Handlooms Co-operative Weavers and Production Co-operative Society, Appa-jirao Lane, Bangalore, during the period 1-7-1981 to 15-4-1982. It is alleged that there was a deficit of plain silk and weft silk to the tune of rs. 12,770. 20 ps. The auditor who is P. W. 3 in his audit report held the accused who was the honorary Secretary liable for this deficit and recorded the conclusion that he was responsible for the misappropriation of the goods or the proceeds thereof. The Society was superseded and one Shankar Narayan was appointed as Administrator of the Society. He in turn, on the basis of the audit report which had been submitted to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies accorded sanction and authorised P. W. 7 to file a complaint against the accused. On the basis of this complaint the accused who was then aged about 52 years came to be arrested on the serious charge of committing criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 409 of the IPC. As is characteristic, the investigation process itself dragged on for years together and the charge-sheet was only filed in the year 1992. The case took another 9 years for disposal and the Trial Court by judgment dated 1-6-2001 acquitted the accused. It is this order of acquittal that is under challenge in the present appeal filed by the State.

(2.) BEFORE issuing notice to the respondent-accused, we consider it our duty to very carefully re-examine the case on merits because the accused has already undergone the trauma of a prosecution in respect of an incident of 1982 and has been acquitted after a torturous exercise of 19 years. It is true that in the majority of cases relating to Co-operative societies the charge is fully justified because misappropriation of funds is rampant and unfortunately because of the thoroughly unprofessional manner in which the entire proceeding carries on which includes the investigative process, that the case itself fails by default because the investigation is of a very low caliber since nobody is really interested in the prosecution, and most of the relevant documents and records are not forthcoming. The witnesses are dead or not traceable or are irresponsible enough to give non-committal evidence and this Court has passed severe strictures on the Co-operative Department several times with directions to rectify the situation.

(3.) TODAY, we come across the reverse position where the audit report itself was thoroughly unjustifed because the records of the Society show that there was a deficit on an earlier occasion before the charge was handed over to the accused. This clearly indicates that he was not responsible for the earlier shortage. As regards the major part of the consignment, it was demonstrated that the earlier Secretary had given this material to one Sunderaraju under Suspense Account and that Sun-deraraju had paid up the amount due under Bill No. 4760 on 25-6-1982. All of this has been brought out in cross-examination and it is very clear to us that the Audit Report was factually incorrect and unjustified and what compounds the matter is that the Assistant Registrar of the Department has not bothered to verify and cross-check. What further aggravates the situation is the fact that when an Administrator was appointed, instead of personally verifying the position he has mechanically directed a prosecution as a result of which the accused who was an elderly person was unjustifiably arrested and had to undergo the trauma of 19 years of agony. We have elaborately set out these facts because the learned Trial Judge has thereafter recorded the finding that the prosecution witnesses themselves have admitted all of these facts and have also accepted the position that the accused has not misappropriated any of the Society's property or funds. Consequently, the prosecution was thoroughly unjustified and we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the accused who is a person of modest means has been not only humiliated but traumatised right through this long period of 19 years.