SHER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two connected appeals arising out of the judgment of I Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly. Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 1972 is by Sher Singh while the other appeal is by Shyama Charan, Bhanu Pratap Singh and Ved Prakash. All these four appellants have been convicted under Sections 408 and 467 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and each appellant has been awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years under each count. Each appellant has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 408 IPC in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The two sentences have been ordered to run con currently.

(2.) THE case relates to criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 8439.35 paise belonging to the District Co-operative Cane Supply Society, Bareilly. THE Society used to purchase sugarcane for supply it to H. R. Sugar Factory, Bareilly. For the purpose of purchasing sugarcane, the society had opened various purchasing centres, and the instant case relates to Alampur purchasing centre. THE supply used to be made in pursuance of Sattas that is to say agreements between the cultivators and the Society. It may be useful to give some details about the method of working. THE sugarcane brought at the centre used to be weighed in presence of two weighment clerks, one on behalf of the Factory and the other on behalf of the Society. THE weight was recorded in the supply ticket and the pass book. Both the weighment clerks used to prepare their separate weighment sheets. THE weighment clerk of the Factory used to prepare parchis in quadruplicate of four different colours bound in books of fifty each and bearing distinct numbers arranged, in serial number. THEse parchis used to be signed by both the weighment clerks. THE first two foils and the pass book used to be given to the cane supplier and they were to be presented for obtaining payment. THE third foil was to be sent along with the weighment sheet to the office of the Factory while the fourth foil used to remain in the book itself. THE cane supplier used to present the first foil along with his pass book to the Society's checker who used to make the checking with the help of Society's ledger and the supplier's pass book. After this checking, the parchi was to be sent to the payment clerk for final payment. THEre seems to be no controversy in this case regarding the method of supply and payment.

(3.) ALL the appellants admitted that they were holding the said posts in the Society and the Factory during the aforesaid period. Appellant Shyama Charan denied having written the dis puted parchis and challenged the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. Appellant Sher Singh admitted that he had received ten parchi books and he also admitted that on 3-4-1966 Firozul Rehman visited his centre and he found that book No. 4470 was missing and that some parchis were missing from books Nos. 4466 to 4469. He also said that somebody had committed theft of the aforesaid parchis for which he had given information to the police. Appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh said that he made the payments when the parchis were passed on to him after being checked, and that he did not know whether the names mentioned in those parchis were real or fictitious. He further said that he used to get his account checked every evening by the head cashier. Appellant Ved Prakash admitted that he checked the parchis marked Exts. Ka-3 to Ka-52, but he did not know whether the parchis were for ged or genuine. He also admitted having made entries in the cane ledger Exts. Ka-Sl to Ka-85. His main defence was that due to shortage of emplojces the work was not up-to-date and he was ins tructed by the Secretary, R. U. Khan to make the payment and make entry in the ledger because it was possible that entries in the ledger had not been made due to the work falling in arrears. No oral evidence was adduced by any of the appellants. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the parchis in question were in fictitious names and therefore, payment on the basis of those parchis was wrong and unauthorised. The learned Sessions Judge also came to the conclusion that all these appellants had entered into a conspiracy to obtain wrongful payment in the names of ficti tious persons by preparing parchis in the names of fictitious persons and by mak ing fictitious entries in the other relevant documents. In view of these findings, he convicted and sentenced all these appellants as mentioned above.