STATE Vs. HANAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Karnataka, through this appeal has assailed the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent-accused by the learned J. M. F. C. , Hungund in C. C. No. 1179/1988. Briefly stated, the accused-Hanamappa Hugar who was working as the Secretary of the S. K. Budihal V. S. S. S. between the years 1976 and 1984 is alleged to have misappropriated three amounts of money during the period from 1-7-1983 to 31-3-1984. The three amounts in question are an amount of Rs. 2,400/- which was the salary amount payable to one P. B. Goudar who was another employee of the society, an amount of Rs. 72. 50 which was detected to be short when the accounts were audited and an amount of Rs. 15,080. 42 which amount was the cash balance which the accused had to hand over on 31-3-1984 when he was relieved of his charge and which he failed to do. The accused was tried by the learned JMFC and the Court by judgment and order dated 23-11-1994 acquitted the accused holding that all the three heads of charge had not been established. It is against this order of acquittal that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) WE need to prefix this judgment by pointing out that offences of this type have become extremely common and that invariably, it takes some time before the formal complaint is lodged and the action according to law is taken and, thereafter, the usual difficulties seem to come up with regard to production of the records, examination of witnesses etc. , as a result of which after a considerable passage of time in the majority of instances the accused are acquitted virtually by default. We have therefore taken meticulous care to examine every one of the relevant records and to reappreciate the evidence quite apart from the oral evidence in the case for purposes of ascertaining as to whether the order of acquittal is justified. The learned Addl. SPP submitted that essentially this is a case of documents. He pointed out to us that the misappropriation was detected because an audit was commenced about two weeks prior to the date when the accused was relieved from his position because of the fact that the Auditor detected the offences in question. The prosecution has produced the relevant records of the society as far as the first head is concerned. The learned Addl. SPP submitted that the witness P. B. Goudar has in terms stated that he has not received the two months salary that is shown to have been disbursed to him as per the pay book. The witness has been cross-examined and the learned counsel points out to us that his evidence has remained unshaken. The prosecution case was that the accused drew this amount from the funds of the society which is established and further more that instead of paying the amount of Rs. 2,400/- to the said Goudar, that he has misappropriated the amount and made an entry in the records along with a stamped receipt containing the signature of the witness in order to make it appear as though the payment has been received by him. The witness has admitted that the signature appearing on the revenue stamp is his signature but the prosecution has been able to point out to the Court as per Exhibit P. 3 (b) that the revenue stamp bearing the signature of this witness from Entry No. 47 is missing. It is the prosecution case that this missing stamp has been affixed in support of the contention that the amount in question was paid to the witness as his salary. Learned counsel submits that this evidence conclusively establishes the charge as far as the amount of misappropriation of Rs. 2,400/- is concerned.

(3.) THE learned Advocate Sri Savanur has pointed out to us one circumstance of some importance. We had sent for the original registers and we have perused the original documents Exhibit P. 3 (b) and Exhibit P. 3 (c ). What the learned counsel brings to our notice is that there are clear indications in green pencil on each of the pages and each of the entries which are obviously made by the Auditor which indicate that the entries in question were checked one by one. It is true that the stamp is missing from Exhibit P. 3 (b) but what the learned counsel brings to our attention is the fact that like all the other stamps on that page, the Auditor's green pencil endorsement which is there both on the left and the right of where the original stamp was, would necessarily indicate that the endorsements must have run across the stamp that was originally there. His further submission is that if the stamp along with signature was lifted from this page and re-used in Exhibit P. 3 (b) as is the prosecution case, that the stamp would have had the green mark running across it and from the absence of this mark it is his submission that the entire allegation that the stamp has been transferred, remains unsubstantiated. There is some substance in this submission because if the stamp that appears in Exhibit P. 3 (c) is not the one that has been removed from the earlier pages, then it would mean that the entry cannot be faulted and if this is the position, then the evidence of witness Goudar who states that this amount was not paid to him becomes doubtful. Having regard to this position, we would prefer to extend the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused as far as this head of charge is concerned.