LAWS(ALL)-1987-7-34

DMA NATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On July 10, 1987
DMA NATH MISHRA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 10-1-1985 passed by the Special Judge, Varanasi allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the applicant and sending back the case to the Magistrate for retrial according to law in the light of observations made in the order

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and they are these The applicant was convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for a period of one year and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment to one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for an. offence under sections 467/468/409 IPC as the applicant was alleged to have withdrawn a sum of Rs 5500/- from Account No SBA/C No. 498767 of one Salik Singh by forging the signature of the depositor. In the complaintil; was alleged that the present applicant has embezzled the aforesaid amount in the capacity of a public servant.

(3.) Even though P.W. 1 Han Lal Gupta, Inspector Post Offices, P.W. 2 Santu Ram, clerk, P.W. 3 Babu Lal Ram, P.W. 4 Triloki Nath, P.W. 5 Salik Singh and P.W. 6 Kanhaiya Ram clerk in the Post Office were examined in support of the prosecution case and they made statements that the signature of Salik Singh, the depositor on the withdrawal form was forged by the applicant and the said signature tallies with the hand-writing of the applicant Dma Nath Mishra. Majority of the prosecution witnesses positively stated that they were acquainted with the signature of the applicant working as Post-Master and the said signature tallies with the signature made of the withdrawal form and it appears that it is only the applicant who has forged the signature of Salik Singh on the withdrawal form. Relying upon the statement of prosecution witnesses the conviction was recorded and sentence was awarded to the applicant. Against that order an appeal was filed and the same has been allowed and the retrial has been ordered by the impugned order.