IN RE: RAMAMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMAMOORTHY , the petitioner in these two revision petitions, was the Agricultural Extension Officer in the Theni Panchayat Union between July, 1966 and April, 1967. During this period, he was entrusted with manure and seeds valued at Rs. 5,994 -92 for sale to the ryots. The amount realised by him by such sales was not remitted by him into the Treasury. He was also entrusted with 300 cocoanut seedlings, 500 kgs. of sevin dust, and 2,400 kgs. of C.C. 25 paddy seeds during his tenure, for sale to the ryots. He failed to deposit Rs. 156, value of 130 cocoanut seedlings, Rs. 18 -40, value of 8 kgs. of sevin dust and Rs. 24 -80, value of 40 kgs. of paddy seeds. He was prosecuted for offences under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in two cases.

(2.) THIRU Suruliraj, the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union, deposed to the entrustment, the sale and the non -remittance. This evidence was given by him with reference to the stock register maintained in the office. The learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Usilampatti, who tried the petitioner, convicted him under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500 in C.C. No. 165 of 1969 and 6 months with a fine of Rs. 50 in the other case, viz., C.C. No. 167 of 5969. He observed that the accused had sold the manure and seeds, realised the amount, but failed to deposit the same into the Treasury. He further observed that in the stock register, he had showed a ' nil ' balance. This stock register was not produced or marked on the side of the prosecution in the trial. The only document marked was Exhibit P -1, the report sent by P.W. 1 to the police on 15th October, 1968. In C.C. No. 167 of 1969 he observed that the accused had not noted in the stock register that 130 cocoanut seedlings got perished and destroyed. Here also the stock register was not produced or marked on the side of the prosecution in the trial. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai, held that the copies of the entries were not furnished to the accused and that the (earned trial Magistrate should not have adverted to and relied upon these entries in the stock registers for convicting the accused. With these observations, he set aside the convictions, but remanded the cases back to the lower Court for a fresh trial. The correctness of these orders are, now canvassed in these two revisions.

(3.) HAVING found that the prosecution had failed to prove the cases, adducing the relevant evidence, the learned Sessions Judge should have straightaway acquitted the petitioner instead of giving a further opportunity to the prosecution to fill in the lacuna. It follows that the order for re -trial made by the learned Sessions Judge could not be sustained and the same is set aside. The result is that there is no legal evidence in proof of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Hence he is acquitted. Both the revisions are allowed.