GULIN CHANDRA HANSDA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was an Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster (EDBPM), Kodapara Branch Post Office, Midnapore within Police Station - Belpahari. As Postmaster, he received certain amount of money for deposit in Savings Bank Account No. 556756 standing in the name of one Gobordhan Tudu. Similarly, one Malati Soren was savings bank account holder bearing no. 556851 maintained in the said Post Office. She also deposited certain amount of money on 5/11/1986. One Smt. Rani Murmu was also the holder of Savings Bank Account No. 557135. She also deposited certain amount of money on 27/5/1986 in her passbook. The appellant received the said money from the above-named savings bank account holders, entered the said deposit in their passbooks with official seal and signature and returned the passbooks to the above-named account holders. However, on departmental enquiry it was learnt that the said Postmaster never entered the money so deposited by the savings bank account holders in the ledger book and other official registers and documents and the said deposits were not made over to the Government account. In view of such specific act and omission made by the appellant, one Sunil Baran Mukherjee, Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Offices lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Belpahari Police Station on 1/7/1988 on the basis of which Belpahari Police Station Case No. 1 dtd. 1/7/1988 under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant.

(2.) The learned Trial Judge on careful consideration of entire evidence on record both oral and documentary as well as the answers given by the appellant in course of his examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held the accused guilty for committing offence under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

(3.) It was further observed in Paragraph 20 of the said judgment that neither Trial Court nor the High Court took notice of the defence taken by the appellant while examined under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to either accept or reject it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that the defence taken by the accused in course of his examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to be irrelevant, illogical or fanciful in the entirety of the facts and nature and other evidence available. The complete non-consideration thereof would cause prejudice to the appellant.