SOMANATH CHOUDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the Agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Cuttack L.I.C. Division in 1961 -62. He was charged under Section 409, I.P.C. read with Section 420 and alternatively under Section 420, I.P.C. for misappropriation of several items of money collected by him as first premium from several persons in connection with proposals for insurance. He has been acquitted in all these cases of the charge under Sections 420 and 420 -B, I.P.C. but has been convicted under Section 409, I.P.C. In Criminal Revision No. 65 of 1980 he has been convicted under Section 409, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default to undergo S.I. for 15 days on the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 57.08 paise. In Criminal Revision No. 66 of 1980 the petitioner has been convicted under Section 409, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default to undergo S.I. for 15 days for misappropriation of Rs. 56.10 paise. In Criminal Revision No. 67 of 1980, he has been convicted under Section 409, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo Rule 1. for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00, in default to undergo Rule 1. for two months for misappropriation of Rs. 240.49 paise.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that the petitioner had collected the first premium from several persons in each of the cases and has not deposited the same in the L.I.C. office. This fact was detected later on verification of records and, as such, he has been prosecuted and has been found guilty for misappropriation of the aforesaid amounts.

(3.) PROSECUTION relies on the statement of Sri Dasgupta when he says that he has not received any money from the petitioner. It is admitted by D.W. 1 who was the Branch Manager that Sri Dasgupta was involved in a departmental in quiry relating to misappropriation of such premium money. There is no reason why the officers of the L.I.C. could depose in favour of the petitioner and say that according to practice prevalent in the office, the agents were handing over money to. the Development Officer and, in fact, D.Ws. 1 and 3 have seen the petitioner handing over the' money to Sri Dasgupta. It is not possible on their part to say to whom the money relates but they have been examined in order to establish that the prevalent practice in the office was that the agents including the petitioner were handing over the money to the Development Officer. It has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses including Sri Dasgupta that as soon as the money relating to the first payment of premium comes to the L.I.C., it has to be deposited in the suspense account because it cannot be kept in regular account of the L.I.C. unless and until the proposal is finalised after acceptance and at that time the money comes from the suspense account to the regular account of the L.I.C. Mr. Dasgupta refers to the registers where he could not find the deposit of money by the petitioner but those registers relate to the suspense account where the money is deposited after finalisation of the proposal.