STATE Vs. HIRALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the acquital of Hira Lal passed in appeal by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge of Allahabad. The respondent was prosecuted of charges under Section 408, I. P. C. (Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant) and 477-A. I. P., C. (falsification of accounts) and he was convicted and sentenced by a Magistrate under both the sections. In appeal the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge found that the charges were not proved beyond doubt and held that the accused was entitled to an acquittal.

(2.) Hira Lal respondent was serving as a Munim in firm Sundarram Ramphal. He was responsible for the maintenance of accounts and for the handling and disbursement of cash. One Jagdeo had an account with this firm. On the 10th February, 1949, corresponding to Magh Sudi Duadashi, Sambat 2005, a sum of Rs. 596/7/ was said to have been advanced from this firm by the respondent to Jagdeo. A slip of account was said to have been given in the handwriting of the respondent to Jagdeo containing a settlement of account of previous dates and mentioning also that Rs. 596/7/- had been advanced to him on the 10th February 1949. It was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that in the books of account the respondent had first made an entry of Rs. 596/7/-, which was the actual amount that was advanced to Jagdeo, but he later on interpolated the entry in the Kachaha Rokar as also in the Pakka Rokar and Khata by adding the digit '1' before the sum of Rs. 596/7/- making it to appear that the amount that he advanced to Jagdeo was really Rs. 1596/7/-.

(3.) The defence taken up by the accused was that after the account-slip had been prepared and given to him by Jagdeo in which the sum of Rs. 596/7/- was entered as having been advanced on that particular day, Jagdeo asked for a further advance of Rs. 1000/- and the proprietors of the firm asked the respondent to make over a further sum of Rs. 1000/-; whereupon he did so in the presence of Kamla Prasad and Ramphal the proprietor, and that as the statement of account which Was earlier given by him to Jagdeo was not given back to him, this sum of Rs. 1000/- had not been entered there. His defence further was that subsequently there was some trouble between him and Ramphal, the- proprietor, which necessitated his giving up his job and that it was on that account that he has been falsely implicated.