L DHANYA NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Criminal Appeals having been connected and consolidated arise out of a judgment of the Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, convicting the appellant L.D.Naik, the then Block Development Officer, Hosadurga, u/Ss.467/34, 477(A)/34 and 409/34 of the IPC and sentencing him to, three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.500 and in default to undergo further RI for three months each for the offences under Ss.467/34 and 409/34 of the IPC, and sentencing htm to one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs.200 and in default to undergo RI for one month under S.477(A)/34 of the IPC. The Prosecution Case was that the appellant L.D.Naik was working as Block Development Officer, Hosadurga, during the years 1968-69 along with K. H. Seshachar under him as the First Division Clerk, and Revanna working under him as an Accountant in the same office. Besides these officials, there were two, contractors namely, K.K. Mohiyuddin and Anjanappa to whom several works of the Taluk Board were entrusted and they were engaged to complete these works. According to the arrangement in vogue in that office, the account of the Taluk Board used to be kept at the Sub-Treasury of Hosadurga and the payments were to be made through cheques which were prepared by K. H. Seshachar, supervised by the Accountant Revanna, and ultimately signed by L. D. Naik - the appellant, before the amounts were drawn from the treasury. Accordingly, on 4-10-68, the counterfoil of cheque No. 1963 was written by K.H. Seshachar and the amount of Rs.149-47 was written therein for payment of royalty. Thereafter, when the cheque itself was prepared, the figure was inflated to Rs. 6,718-45 and this was the cheque that was sent to the treasury for encashment. The cheque was drawn in the name of Anjanappa, contractor, and the latter withdrew that amount from the treasury. Similarly, on 10-1-69, the counterfoil of cheque No. 2048 was prepared for Rs. 24.96 which was payable for electric charges. However, the cheque itself was prepared for Rs. 9824.26 which was again in favour of Anjanappa, contractor. Thereafter, the said contractor withdrew that amount from the treasury. The third case related to cheque No. 9,400 of which the counterfoil contained the figure of Rs. 26.40 which was for T.A. Bill payable to a certain Headmaster . Subsequently, the cheque itself was inflated and the amount of Rs. 9,855 payable to K. H. Mohiyuddin, contractor, was shown and the said amount was withdrawn by the contractor from the treasury. In this manner, Rs. 6569.02 in respect of cheque No. 1963, Rs. 9800 in respect of cheque No. 2048 and Rs. 9828.60 in respect of cheque No. 9400 were drawn in excess and the offences of forgery, falsification of accounts as well as Criminal breach of trust were committed by these public servants. It appears, subsequently an audit was conducted and the Superintendent Ramachandra Setty discovered the defalcation committed by these public servants. Accordingly he submitted the detailed report. Thereafter, a complaint to the police was instituted at the instance of one T. Siddappa, the then Block Development Officer, and all these public servants along with the two contractors were arrayed as accused.

(2.) After the submission of the charge sheet, however, K. H. Seshachar, the First Division Clerk in whose handwriting both the counterfoils as well as the cheques existed besides the cash book and the pass book, committed suicide. The prosecution produced twenty witnesses including Ramachandra Setty (P.W.1) the Superintendent who conducted the audit. G. Venkatachala Rao (P.W.2) and Ramaiah (P.W.3) belonged to the same office. They came to state about the general distribution of work in that office. S.Laxminarayana Raju (PW.4), B.L.Rangaswamy (P.W.5) and H. Hayath Sab (P.W.6) also belonged to the same office. They came to state abojut the signatures and identified them to be of the appellant L. D. Naik. They also proved the handwriting of the deceased Seshachar. Besides these three witnesses, D. Sunkappa (P.W.9). D.Hanumanthappa (P.W.10), and G. Srinivasa Murthy (P.W.15) who belonged to the Sub-treasury of Hosadurga also came to prove the signatures of both Seshachar and the appellant L. D. Naik. A. Lingaiah (P.W.16) was produced as the Handwriting Expert and he could tell that the signatures on the impugned cheques were of the appellant L.D.Naik. The witnesses Abdul Ghani (PW.11) and K.S.Sanna Katappa (PW. 12) were the shorffs of the treasury and they came to state that higher amounts were paid to the two contractors. Chowdappa (P.W.13) and M.Veera-bhadrappa (P.W.14) have stated for the bill pertaining to electricity. In fact, the said bill was paid in cash although the counterfoil of the cheque No. 2048 was prepared for that amount. The cheque was ultimately inflated to Rs. 9824.26 to facilitate the alleged defalcation. T. Siddappa, 'Block Development Officer (PW.12) sent the police complaint and he stated about the procedure for payment through cheque which was in vogue in the office. P.W.7 D. Suryanarayana was the Headmaster who came to state that he had not submitted any T.A.Bill. The rest of the witnesses were Police Officers.

(3.) There was a denial on the part of the appellant L. D. Naik that the signatures over the cheques were his or that he was responsible for any forgery, falsification of accounts or criminal breach of trust. According to him, Seshachar used to keep the cheque book and it was he who prepared the cash book, the pass book, the counterfoils as well as the disputed cheques. However, L. D. Naik in the capacity of Block Development Officer was required to sign the cheques but when the same were produced before him he disowned his signatures on these cheques. Similarly, the accused Eevanna also denied the charges. According to him, Seshachar never took him into confidence and he alone did all this work for which he cannot be held responsible. The two contractors-accused-however stated that they had done some construction work for the Taluk Board and bonafide believed that the cheques were paid in lieu of that work. As such, they encashed the cheques and they could not be stated to have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust.