KRISHNAJI BABACHARYA MAHULI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, committed four accused to stand their trial at the Court of Session under Sections 409, 467 and 477A, Penal Code read with Section 34, Penal Code, Accused 1 has come in revision against the order of committal and prays that the order be quashed.

(2.) The prosecution case was that accused 1, was the godown keeper of a Government godown at Shahpur. Accused 2 was working as an accountant under accused 1. Accused 3 was Government Milling Clerk in the Jai Hind Mills who was looking after the milling of rice, sent to that mill by Government. Accused 4 was a clerk of the mills. The practice followed by Government with regard to the milling of rice was this. Paddy was sent to the mills and after the paddy had been turned into rice it was sent by the mills to the Government godown in carts and the clerk attending to this work in the mills used to write out a despatch note with three duplicates. The original was kept in the mills and the three duplicates used to be given to the cartman who used to carry the rice. The cartman used to take the signature on these despatch notes from the godown keeper or the accountant. He used to keep one of these with himself and the other two used to be given to the godown keeper and the godown keeper used to keep one for the records of the godown and the other used to be sent to the Civil Supplies Department later on. With regard to the method of keeping accounts, two registers were maintained which have been described as part II-A and part II-B. In one register, as soon as the rice was received, a note was made of the receipt, and in the other register, Part II-B, the total received in the course of the day was entered. According to the prosecution the offence took place on 3-10-1949, and this is what happened on that day. Twenty seven bags of rice were sent pay the Jai Hind Rice Mills and these bags were given to a cartman who is Exh. 2 to be taken in his cart to the Government godown. The cartman carried these 27 bags in two trips. He carried 16 bags in the first trip and 11 bags in the second trip. As usual he was given three duplicate despatch notes. Accused 2 was not at the godown when the 16 bags were brought but he was there when the other lot of 11 bags were brought, and accused l signed all the three despatch notes. He gave one of them to the cartman and handed over the other two to accused 2 for the record. An entry of these 27 bags was also made in part II-A. On the same day the godown received a further quantity of 16 bags from Prakash Mills and an entry in Part II-B shows that on that day 43 bags in all were received. The prosecution case is that on 7-10.1949, accused 3 in conjunction with accused 2 made an alteration in the two receipts which had been given by the cartman to accused l and these are Exhs. 1-D and 1-E, and the alterations are that instead of 27 bags, 43 bags are shown as having been despatched by the Jai Hind Mills. The books of the Jai Hind Mills also showed that 43 bags were despatched from the Jai Hind Mills, but the Government godown only received 27 bags and therefore the accused were charged with having misappropriated 16 bags and also for making alterations in the two despatched notes Exhs. 1-D and 1.-E.

(3.) Now, the question is whether there is any evidence at all which would justify the Committing Magistrate in holding that there are sufficient grounds for committing the appellant to the Sessions. It is the case of the prosecution itself that when the alterations were made on 7-10-1949, accused l was not present and that the alterations are in the handwriting of accused 3 and they were made with the assistance of accused 2. It is further in evidence that accused l himself made a complaint when he discovered the alterations made-in the despatch notes to his superior officer. The learned Magistrate has referred to the case of accused l only in one sentence and this is what he says: