KURIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, in C. C. No. 56 of 1978, for offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 471 and 477a of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 409 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months under each of the other counts. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 1978 before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction under Section, 409 and Section 477a of the IPC and reduced the sentence under Section 409 of the IPC to six months. The conviction and sentences under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC were set aside. The revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentences under Sections 409 and 477a of the IPC.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner was a permanent employee of the Central Bank of India, Kottayam branch. An extension counter had been functioning during the relevant period at the Rubber Board Office at Puthupally to facilitate the operation of savings account transactions of the staff of the Rubber Board. The revision petitioner was functioning as a "c" Grade cashier in the extension counter in November, 1977. The depositors having accounts in the extension counter were being issued pass books wherein the deposits and withdrawals were entered. Separate accounts regarding the transactions were maintained in the Kottayam branch. The daily transactions were entered in a token book as well as a teller card maintained in respect of individual customers. Amounts were being withdrawn on presentation of withdrawal slips signed by the party. The petitioner was having custody of the relevant records. On the basis of the token book, entries were being made in the ledger maintained in the branch office at Kottayam and this account was being checked by the accountant.

(3.) PW-2, Aleyamma Abraham, a member of the staff of the Rubber Board, was having a savings bank account, of which Ex. P-1 is the pass book. On January 16, 1978, she had to her credit an amount of Rs. 12,463. 70. She withdrew Rs. 11,000 on that day and the balance was Rs. 1,463. 70 as per the pass book issued to her. PW-3, a sub-accountant of the Kottayam branch, had occasion to scrutinise the ledger maintained in respect of PW-2. He detected a credit entry of Rs. 6,000 on January 12, 1978, stated to have been paid by cheque, unsupported by a voucher. Further verification revealed a withdrawal of Rs. 1,000 on November 9, 1977, as per Ex. P-2 (withdrawal slip) and another amount of Rs. 5,000 on November 14, 1977, as per Ex. P6 (withdrawal slip ). These entries were seen entered in Ex. P-3 (teller card) maintained in the name of PW-2. It was disclosed that another teller card (Ex. P-5) was also maintained in the name of the same party and that the balance under Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-5 did not tally. PW1, the branch manager, was informed about the irregularity. He contacted PW-2, Aleyamma Abraham, as per Ex. P-8 letter dated January 16, 1978, in order to ascertain the authenticity of the credit entry of Rs. 6,000 on January 12, 1978. She was also informed that if the credit entry of Rs. 6,000 was not to be taken into account, the balance available to her account was only Rs. 4,536. 30. Since there was some doubt regarding two withdrawals, viz. , the one of Rs. 1,000 on November 9, 1977, and the other of Rs. 5,000 on November 14, 1977, she was asked to inform whether those amounts were actually drawn by her. PW-2 received the letter on January 17, 1978. She sent Ex. P-9 reply denying that she had withdrawn amounts debited against her on November 9, 1977, and November 14, 1977. She also stated that she had not paid an amount of Rs. 6,000 referred to in Ex. P-8 either by cash or by cheque on January 12, 1978. She maintained that even without that deposit she had sufficient amount to her credit when she withdrew Rs. 11,000. The entries in Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-5 (teller cards), Ex. P-10 (token register) and Ex. P-11 (voucher) were found to be in the handwriting of the petitioner. On January 18, 1978, according to the prosecution, the petitioner remitted Rs. 6,000 in the bank under Ex. P-12 series vouchers. On January 19, 1978, he gave the statement, Ex. P-7, admitting that he had misappropriated Rs. 6,000 on the basis of Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-6 forged withdrawal slips. The petitioner was thereupon placed under suspension. A complaint, Ex. P13, was launched with the police. A crime was registered and in due course the petitioner was tried and convicted. It is the above conviction and sentence which are the subject matter of the revision. 3. The revision petition stands referred to a Division Bench for a decision on the question whether an employee of a nationalised bank is a public servant coming under the definition of that term in Section 21 of the IPC. As far as we could see there is no scope for controversy on this point. Section 21 of the IPC mentions the various persons who are public servants. The 12th clause reads :