AMBRUSHI GOVIND SAWANT Vs. PRABHAWATIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barshi, in Regular Criminal Case No. 574 of 1979 has, after obtaining leave of this Court, preferred the present appeal which is directed against an order of acquittal, dated 7. 11. 1984. The complainant is the husband of a teacher who at the relevant time was working with Barshi Shikshan Prasarak Mandai, Barshi. He alleges that certain malpractices were being committed by the, institution in relation to the payment of salaries of the teachers and that they were, in fact, been paid lower amounts. According to the complainant, the school in question used to receive the full amount due an salaries from the Government and that the third copy of the statement which was used far the purpose of disbursing, the amount showed lower figures after making some unauthorized deductions. The teachers were paid lower salaries than what they were entitled to and the difference, according to the complainant, was misappropriated by the three Accused. Essentially, the charge was directed against Accused No. 3 who, at the relevant time, was the Head Master with the names of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 thrown in an the ground that they were also parties to the commission of the offence, the stray allegation being that they were in the knowledge of what was happening and that it was at their instance. The complainant alleges that this practice was going an far quite sometime and that they had, tried everything, from complain to the authorities, to the administration and that ultimately a complaint came to be filed after a lapse of several, years in respect of a restricted period which cavers the period from January to July, 1969. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the Accused principally, an the ground that the material adduced by the prosecution was insufficient to establish that any once had on committed by Accused Nos. 1 to 3. Ids against this order that the present appeal has been directed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel far the appellant original complainant, submitted that the record in this case, which includes copies of complaints to authorities, etc. will indicate that a serious malpractice was, in fact, prevalent at the relevant time. Secondly, in order to eliminate instances of this type the Government itself adapted a letter procedure in relation to the payment of salaries. He pointed out that the poor teachers were unjustifiably denied certain amounts which it could demonstrated, affected them very such because there is an record an application filed by the complainantts wife who states that when she was in need of a small amount of money, she did not have it and she had to request the school authorities to sanction the amount. He, thereafter, pointed out that the complainant who, though not, a teacher in the institution, had personal knowledge of what was happening because he used to be present at the time when salaries were disbursed to the complainants wife and some of the other teachers and has deposed before the trial Court and that the evidence of all these witnesses unmistakably establishes that certain malpractices were, in fact, prevalent at the relevant time. He, thereafter, contended that it was the responsibility of Accused No. 3 arid, by implication, of Accused Nos. 1 and who were the office-bearers. of the institution, to ensure that the full amount received from the Government against the salaries was in fact disbursed. He stated that if the evidence indicates that this was not done then it must be held than he amount which was wrongfully with, held was, in fact, misappropriated by the three Accused. It is with regard to the last aspect of the matter that the trial Court has held that the nexus between whatever was alleged and the present Accused had not been established.

(3.) ON behalf of the Respondents. Accused, Shri Chari, learned Counsel, pointed out that in the present case the crucial evidence relates to a letter which is Ext. D-23 on which, it is alleged, Accused No. 3 made a certain endorsement and put his signature. At one point of time, the prosecution had made an application for sending the requisite document to the handwriting expert which application was turned down as it was premature. Unfortunately, that application was never renewed. The Accused have denied the signatures and handwritings and under these circumstances, the crucial nexus or the connecting factor between the Accused and what is alleged to have been happening is lacking. Shri Chari has drawn my attention to certain admissions given by the wife of the complainant and one of the other teachers whereby they have stated that in the enquiry held by the Education Authorities, they have admitted that no deductions were made. He, therefore, submitted that the allegations made by the complainant, who was not a teacher of that school and who appears to be a local busy-body, cannot be said to have been established or that any malpractices were prevalent in the absence of any conclusive proof.