HARIPADA DHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Haripada Dhar was convicted by a Special Judge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 26 as a public servant on July 28, 1952, when he was employed temporarily as a Money Order Clerk at Kalipahari Sub-Post Office and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 200 or in default of the payment of the fine to further rigorous imprisonment for three months. It was directed that the amount of the fine was to be paid out of a sum of Rs. 246 which the Appellant deposited with the Post Master on August 6, 1952, the balance of Rs. 46 being refunded to him and that out of the fine a sum of Rs. 100 was directed to be paid to the Postal Department of the Government of India and the balance to the State of "West Bengal. There were two other charges against the. Appellant but he was acquitted of those charges. Admittedly, the Appellant was appointed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Burdwan Division, as a temporary clerk in 1952 and admittedly he joined his duties at Kalipahari Sub-Post Office on July 19, 1952. It is further an admitted fact that the Appellant was placed under suspension with effect from August 19, 1952, so that he was actually working in a temporary capacity in the Kalipahari Sub-Post Office from July 19, 1952, to August 18, 1952. It is the case for the prosecution that the Sub-Post Master allotted to the Appellant certain duties including the duties of a Money Order Clerk. In that capacity he had to receive Money Orders with the requisite money and the commission from members of the public and after entering the same in different registers it was his duty to make over, the cash collected at the close of the day to the Sub-Post Master as usual. As the Appellant was acquitted of two out of the three charges and convicted only on one charge we are concerned in this appeal only with Money Order No. 2979, dated July 28, 1952, out of which this charge arises. On this Money Order a sum of Rs. 40 was remitted by Murat Kaut, P.W. 12 to his father Dumar Kaut. The Money Order form was actually written by P.W. 11, a postal peon attached to the Post Office (Earn Chandra Tewari) and after the Money Order form was written Murat Kaut himself handed over the Money Order form together with a sum of Rs. 40 and a Money Order commission of as. 10 to the Appellant who was working as Money Order Clerk. The Money Order Clerk received the amount and gave Murat Kaut a receipt which has been marked "Z" for identification, the carbon copy thereof kept in the Receipt Book of the Post Office being ext. 9/2. In the copy of the receipt ext. 9/2 as well as in the original receipt marked "Z" for identification, the amount in words appears to be "Fourteen only". In the Money Order form, ext. 11/4, the amount in figures as well as in words in the portion where the entires have to be filled up by the remitter the figure 40 was changed into 14 and the word "forty" appears to have been changed into "Fourteen". Then on top of the Money Order form which is to be filled up in the Post Office the amount in figure is 14 and the amount in words is also "Fourteen only". It is the prosecution case that the Appellant is responsible for writing the top portion and in the Journal also the amount appearing against the Money Order No. 2979 is "14", and the commission charged is 4 annas. The prosecution case accordingly is that although the Appellant received from Murat Kaut a sum of Rs. 40-10 including the commission chargeable on a remittance of Rs. 40, what he did was to tamper with the figures in the Money Order form to introduce a shorter figure in the top portion thereof and also in the Receipt and the Journal and persuading the Sub-Post Master to believe that actually the amount remitted was only Rs. 14 so that only Rs. 14 was actually remitted to Murat Kaut's father and not Rs. 40. The case for the prosecution accordingly is that the Appellant committed criminal breach of trust in respect of this amount of Rs. 26 only.

(2.) The defence of the Appellant is that he was not guilty because he was not the Money Order Clerk at all and if he occasionally wrote the receipts, etc., he did so only under the orders of the Sub-Post Master and he had nothing to do with the receipt of money from members of the public.

(3.) The learned Judge on the evidence found first, that although the assignment of duties even temporarily by a Sub-Post Master to his subordinates requires the approval of the Superintendent of Post Offices and although the approval which P.W. 2 Shyamapada Dutta, the Post Master at the relevant time claims to have received from the Superintendent of Post Offices regarding the assignment of the duties of the Money Order Clerk to the accused was not proved, it was a fact that the Appellant was actually working at the relevant period as a Money Order Clerk. Secondly, he found that the Appellant received from Murat Kaut a sum of Rs. 40 and then made it appear by tampering with the Money Order form and making false entries in the Receipt and the Journal that Murat Kaut remitted only Rs. 14 and not Rs. 40. He accordingly found the Appellant guilty of a charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.