RABINDRA NATH MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th/20th September, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court-I, Nadia convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months more.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:

(3.) Mr. Mallick, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the amount stated in the First Information Report was incorrect. Subsequently, corrigendum was submitted by P.W. 3 on 22.03.1994. He criticised such conduct of P.W. 3 and argued that the subsequent corrigendum was lodged on 22.03.1994 in order to cover the misdeeds of P.W. 4 who was primarily responsible for the misappropriation of money and had been suspended by the departmental authorities. In this connection he submitted that the prosecution case is an unnatural and concocted one and the evidence of P.W. 3 as to how he came to know of the incident cannot be believed. P.W. 3 stated that on 19.03.1994 he came to know from one Dilip Sarkar, Night Guard of Gangnapur Sub Post Office, that the appellant was not attending office since 18.03.1994. Mr. Mullick submitted that the said Dilip Sarkar has not been examined in the case whereas P.W. 4 started that one Haripada Biswas was the night guard at the sub-post office. Mr. Mallick further submitted that although the subsequent complaint of P.W. 3 spoke of the iron chest being broken open in the presence of independent witnesses, no such witnesses was examined. Prosecution relied on the version of P.W. 4 who cannot be said to be free of suspicion in the matter of misappropriation of the said money. It was most improper to base the conviction primarily on the evidence of P.W. 4. Mr. Mallick strenuously argued that no effort was made to know the whereabouts of the appellant on 18.03.1994 and 19.03.1994 although his residence was not at a far away place and the iron chest was not broken after giving him due notice or the superior authorities. He, accordingly, submitted that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant ought to be acquitted.