C NKRISHNA MURTHY Vs. ABDUL SUBBAN AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 4 of 1957 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bangalore, wherein the appellant was tried and convicted for offences under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years under each count, but the two sentences, were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the accused who was the Treasurer in the State Huzur Treasury at Bangalore, while being in custody of the State funds, embezzled a sum of Rs. 1,10,161/- in the month of June 1953. It is said that he embezzled a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on 1.6.1953, Rs. 5,000/- on 22.6.1953 Rs. 10,000/- on 24.6.1953, Rs. 5,000/- on 26.6.1953 Rs. 10,000/-on 27.6.1953 and Rs. 5,000/- on 30.6.1953. The further case for the prosecution is that to cover up those embezzlements, he falsified the relevant account books, namely, the Double Lock Register (Ex. P-79), Single Lock Register (Ex. P-83) and the Treasurer's Balance Sheet Register (Ex. P-73), by making false entries therein.

(3.) The plea of the accused is that if there was any defalcation he was not responsible for the same; he was not in custody of the cash and currency in the treasury; the treasury was under the charge of the Treasury Officer (P.W. 13 - N.D. Venkatasubbiah) who was in custody of the money therein; it was the Treasury Officer who was handling the amount in the Treasury and therefore if there was any defalcation or defalcations during the charge period. P.W. 13 must be responsible for the same. He admits having written up Exhibits P-73, P-83 and P-79. But he says that Exhibit P-79 which under the rules had to be maintained by the Treasury Officer was written by him to the dictation of the Treasury Officer, He says that he is not aware whether the entries made therein, are correct or not. According to him, the entries in Ex. P-83 and Ex. P-73 were mostly copied from Ex. P-79; hence he is not responsible if there are any incorrect entries in those books. He denies having made those entries with the intention of defrauding the State. Coming to the first charge framed against him he denies that there was any misappropriation during the charge period. He also raised some legal pleas which will be set out and considered hereinafter.