STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. T NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent T. Narayanan, Cashier in the Accounts Section of Union Public Service Commission was tried for an offence under Section 409 IPC. The allegations against him were that he committed misappropriation and criminal breach of trust of a sum of Rs. 43,943.68 which amount was in his custody as a Cashier.

(2.) Initially, a case of theft under Section 380 Indian Penal Code was registered. During investigations, however, it was found that the iron chest from which the cash was reportedly missing was operated by double lock system, one key remaining with the Cashier and the key of the other lock remaining in the custody of Finance and Accounts Officer (FAO). In addition thereto there was a pad lock fixed on the iron chest, key of which used to be with the FAO. For the opening of the cash chest the FAO had to be personally present and open the pad lock as well as the inbuilt lock first with his key and thereafter the Cashier will apply his key and then the cash chest would open and that the same procedure was adopted at the time of closing of the cash chest after office hours. It was also found that there was a collapsible door between the cash room and the outer room where the officials of the cash Section used to sit. The investigation revealed that there was no sign of any intruder having entered the cash room from the other side of the cash room or windows or ventilators. In view of the aforesaid the possibility of theft was ruled out. It was considered to be a case of someone from the office to be responsible for the missing of the amount. The case of the prosecution was that the amount had been embezzled by respondent Narayanan during the period 1974 and the date of the incident, namely, 19th March, 1976 and that he had lost the amount in Delhi Race Course Club on betting on horse races. The case was accordingly converted from Section 380 Indian Penal Code to that of an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC.

(3.) An application seeking committal of case to Court of Session filed by the prosecution in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate before whom challan had been filed was not opposed by the defence. In view thereof and also stating that in view of the huge amount of alleged misappropriation it was a fit case for trial by the Sessions Court as the Magistrate would not be able to pass adequate sentence after the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate committed the case to Court of Session. Apart from Narayanan the other accused before the Magistrate was Mr. P.R.P. Panikar who at the relevant time was FAO.