MARUDAYYA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case has been convicted by the Additional, First Class magistrate, Coimbatore, for an offence under Section 408, I. P. C. , and sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore. It is against the judgment of the sessions Judge of Coimbatore the present revision has been filed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are these --The petitioner was employed as a cashier in one of the mills in Coimbatore called Kamala Mills. It is alleged that he was so employed almost from the very inception of the Mills, i. e. , for over ten years. He was in custody of the cash belonging to the Mills and he had to maintain the rough cash book and prepare the debit vouchers on the authority of which money had to be drawn from the banks by P. W. 8, the managing agent. His duties also included disbursement of the wages to the labourers employed in the Mill every month. The labourers came under two categories, one the permanent employees and the other substitute employees called Badili workers. So far as the wages to the permanent employees were concerned, they were paid once a month. As regards the wages to the Badili workers they were paid once every fortnight. This system was in vogue till about 1950, From 1951 onwards both of them were paid only at the end of each month. The petitioner, taking advantage of the previous system, viz. , paying fortnightly to Badili workers, is said to have drawn money payable as wages to the Badili workers for the months of February, March, April, May and september 1951, twice over and paid one set of wages only and appropriated the set to himself. The amount thus drawn twice over and misappropriated by the petitioner is said to be about Rs. 28,000 and odd. This misappropriation is said to have been committed between 1st March 1951 and 31st October of that year. This apparently was not noticed either by the Manager, P. W. 1, who is the son of the managing agent or by P. W. 8, the managing agent, himself presumably due to the extreme confidence enjoyed by the petitioner with both the Manager as well as the managing agent. However, in May 1932, at the time of audit, this was becoming known and at that time the petitioner is said to have admitted the excess drawing of the amount and the misappropriation of the same. He then suddenly disappeared and about 7 or 8 days after his disappearance, he sent a letter, Ex. P15, dated 16th May 1952, to P. W. 2, who was doing the audit work. This letter was intended to he conveyed to P. W. 8, the managing agent of the Mills. A few days later, the petitioner himself appeared before P. W. 8, who sent for him and at the instance of P. W. , 8 he did the work of posting the accounts for the year 1952. Discrepancies were discovered by P. W. 2, the auditor, and a list of these discrepancies was prepared and it is Ex. P-16. This is dated 6th July 1952. The accused admitted that be was responsible for these discrepancies and in acknowledgment also signed x. P-16 on 6th July 1952. He, thereafter, executed ex. P-17, a promissory note, on that date, for Rs. 1,55,511 and odd, being the amount found short as per the discrepancies and for which he admitted his liability. Then, on 14th July 1952, he wrote a letter, Ex. P-18, to P. W. 5, the supervisor in the Mills, in respect of the promissory note amount due to the Mills and asking for permission to pay the amount in annual instalments of Rs. 10,000. Subsequently, on 22nd July 1952, the brother of the petitioner also gave a 17. So, from 16th May 1952 till 22nd July 1952, there was not only a series of admission of liability for the amount found short but also arrangements were being made for the payment of the amount by means of a promissory note which was further secured by the guarantee bond executed by the brother of the petitioner. Subsequently, on account of some other reasons, differences arose between the mills, i. e. , P. W. 8 and P. W. 1, on the one side and the petitioner on the other and complaints were filed by the petitioner against P. Ws. 8 and 1 and also by some other share-holders of the Company. It is after all this that P. W. 1 came forward with a complaint to the police on 8th April 1953, and on 9th April 1953 to the magistrate. The police complaint was investigated and a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. The private complaint was clubbed along with this and the petitioner was tried and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) BEFORE the Additional First Class Magistrate, to questions put to him by the court, the petitioner admitted the second drawal for the months except February 1951. He also specifically admitted all the documents prepared by him excepting the total in the wage abstracts. The case had a prolonged trial and in the course of the examination of P. W. 8 and P. W. 1 suggestions were thrown that they were party to this misappropriation; in short, it was vaguely hinted that it was they who misappropriated the money and they are making a cat's paw of the petitioner herein. Needless to say, this suggestion was wholly unfounded. The documents executed by the petitioner, i. e. , Exs. P-15, P-16, P-17, P-18 and Ex. P-19 (the last one being the guarantee bond executed by his brother) clearly show that the petitioner must have misappropriated the money, as otherwise, there is no likelihood of his executing these documents. Even assuming that some of these documents were executed under pressure, certainly the guarantee bond would not have been executed by the brother. All this supports the prosecution case that the letter Ex. P-15 was voluntarily written. A reading of Ex. P-15 will confirm it.