P.T. JOSEPH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant, who was a clerk in the Bhopal General Post Office, was found to have fraudulently converted to his own use the value of five postal orders of Rs. 10 each, a total (including the commission -charge) of Rs. 50 -50 n. P. He has, therefore, been convicted under Section 409, I. P. C., and for criminal misconduct under Section 5(1) (c) and sentenced to concurrent terms of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300 under each of the two counts, (a total of Rs. 600) with further imprisonment in default. The argument here is, firstly that it was a case of innocent mistake, under pressure of work and not one of conversion; secondly, on a point of law, that res gestae being the same, conviction under both the sections i. e., S. 409, I. P. C., and S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was illegal. It is contended that this will have some practical consequence in respect of the fine; the substantive sentences being concurrent, there is no practical consequence in that regard.

(2.) THE Appellant was selling postal orders and was expected to maintain and did actually maintain a journal i. e., a memorandum of the sales and the money realised. At the end of the day, the realisations are deposited and he continues to be responsible for the postal orders left over. Out of those sold on 8 -4 -1960, the sale of three postal orders of Rs. 10 -10 n. P. each, was not shown on the journal. Similarly, on 16 -4 -1960, two such orders were not shown. Thus there was a shortage in the price of the postal orders of a total of Rs. 50 -50 n. P. One of the checks imposed by the department itself is a Count at the end of each day by the post master; but he did not count and these losses or conversions were detected during an inspection on the 23rd.

(3.) AUTHORITY has been shown from a number of rulings that a person cannot be convicted for mere negligence in the discharge of his duties and that where the explanation is intrinsically reasonable, the appellate Court must accept it even though the trial Court may have not considered it satisfactory. These general principles being unexceptional, it is unnecessary to discuss those rulings. The facts however, vary from case to case. In a case of this nature, if the employee reports to his superior the loss of the money or goods or the postal orders of has own accord, then it would be a case of good faith and the worst he would suffer is being called upon to recoup. In every post -office, certain counts and checks have to be made at the end of the day, some by the persons entrusted with the stamps, bonds and postal orders, and others by their superiors. In fact, the work with the public is stopped some time before the proper closing of the office, the interval being used for the purpose. The employee has necessarily to make a count as he closes his journal and enters his balance. If he shows a larger balance of postal orders in the corresponding shorter realisation it may be either the result of negligence or conversion. Either way, it would be discovered when the journal is completed. Whether it is done straightway or after making a rough copy, makes no difference because when the journal is finished, the employee has to show the total sale and the balance in hand. In the event of a shortage, he should go at once to his superior and point it out so that nobody would charge him with conversion.