STATE Vs. TALATI DEVRAJ RUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against the order of the First Class Magistrate, Mangrol, acquitting the respondent of the offence Under Section 409, IPC.

(2.) THE respondent was the Talati of the Shepa group of villages under the Mangrol Mamlatdar between 23-7-50 and 19-8-53. According to prosecution between 15-2-52 and 26-4-53 he received from the cultivators and others 8 sums of money on account of pound fees, land revenue and repayment of tagavi loans. He was required by rules to pay the amounts received by him in Government Treasury the end of the month during which it was received by him. But he did not pay these sums until July 1953 when accounts were audited. Accordingly 8 charge-sheets were submitted by the police against him Under Sections 409 and 477a, IPC in respect of each of these items after the Collector's sanction was obtained Under Section 197, Cr. P, C and Separate cases were registered in the Magistrate's Court- These cases were criminal cases Nos. 13/54, 34/54, 15/54, 17/54, 18/54, 19/54 and 20/54. After recording the prosecution evidence and the respondent's statements Under Section 342, Criminal P. C, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence Under Section 477a was not made out in any of these cases. The prosecution Under Section 477a was therefore dropped. Thereafter the learned Magistrate framed a common charge Under Section 222 (1), Cr. PC its respect of 7 items received by him between 31-5-52 and 26-4-53 and charged him with criminal breach of trust in respect of the aggregate sum of Us. 340-15-9 committed between these dates and consolidated cases Nos. 13/54, 14/54, 15/54, 17/54, 18/54, 19/54 and 20/54. The respondent admitted that he did not pay he amounts in the Government Treasury but his explanation was that he was with the audit f the accounts at Shepa and he paid the amounts either on the eve of the audit or when the mistake was detected during the audit-In the case of two items of Rs, 100/- each received on 16-3-53 and 26-453 his further explanation was that as the Rojmel was in Shepa he forgot to credit them.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate held that the ffence Under Section 409, IPC was made out but the Collector's sanction to prosecute the respondent was invalid inasmuch as he did not appear to have applied his mind to the facts of the case before giving the sanction. He therefore acquitted the respondent.