INDIAN BANK Vs. K RAJENDER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the respondent herein under Section 409 IPC by the IV M.M., Hyderabad in C.C.No.367/91 the defacto-complainant i.e., Indian Bank, Regional Office, Hyderabad filed the present Revision.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this case are that the respondent was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Madepally Branch, R.R.District, of the petitioner bank and on the fateful day i.e., 17-7-'90 the Branch Manager entrusted a sum of Rs. 65,000/- and Rs.211/- of soiled notes under proper acknowledgment to the Respondent for depositing the same in the currency chest of the Indian Bank Regional Office at Himayatnagar.Hyderabad and also provided an escort to him. Both of them seemed to have reached the Central Bus Station and when the escort has gone to answer nature call the respondent was found missing. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Regional office, the Regional Security Officer, lodged a complaint with Afzalgunj Police Station who in turn registered the case for man missing in Crime No. 282/90. The steps mat were taken by the police to trace the petitioner neednot be adverted to in this case to dispose of the case. After some time the petitioner seemed to have obtained anticipatory bailfromll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Hyderabadon4-10-'90 and thereafter a representation dated 9-10-'90 was sent by Regd. Post to Afzalgunj Police Station. I am also not adverting to the averments made by the petitioner in the representation as any view expressed by me may come in the way of one or the other in proving their case. The thrust of this representation seemed to be that the money was robbed by some one from him in the Bus Station. Having found the person alive the police altered the crime to Section 409 IPC and after investigation the police filed the chargesheet against therespondent for misappropriation of the amount. His efforts to keep his employment also need not be traversed in this case. Ultimately when the trial was over the Magistrate acquitted the respondent by holding that he has given sufficient explanation for the amount lost and he cannot be charged with an offence under Section 409 IPC. This finding was recorded by the Magistrate relying on the evidence of P.W.4 which is extracted here under "in this case though the prosecution proved about the entrustment, the accused offered a reasonable explanation that he was robbed of with cash on that day on Salarjung Bridge thoughit was elicitedfrom the P.W.4 mat the case diary discloses about this fact. On the basis of these facts as per P. W. 4 this information was given to the police even on mat day. Thus at the earliest point of time the accused approached the police".

(3.) During the course of the arguments the counsel appearing for the defacto- complainant stated that the respondent never gave any complaint asheld by the Magistrate and even a reading of the deposition of P.W.4 in its entirety didnot give rise to such a finding. Three months after the incident the accused obtained anticipatory bail on 4-10-'90 and thereafter only he filed representation dated 9-10-'90 which was received by the police on 10-10-' 90 stating tha the was robbed at Salarjung Bridge. But this was strenously opposed by the counsel for the respondent. In those circumstances I called for the case diary on the file of the Afjalgunj Police Station. From the record it is seen that there is only one case diary relatingto this incident and that was initially opened with the complaint given by the Regional Security Officer for man missing case which was converted to Section 409 IPC after the respondent came out of his shell Excepttherepresentationdated9-10-'90 I donotfind any other complaint given by the respondent with regard to the theft either on the day of the incident or even within a reasonable period. But the Magistrate withoutlookingintolhisfact simply acquitted the respondent of the charge.