STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR SANTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused respondent, -- a Nazir of Phulbani Collectorate, -- was charged that he between May 1, and 7, 1957 as a servant in the employment of government and in such capacity entrusted with cash of Rs. 11,147. 46 np. committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the same. He was convicted by the learned Munsif Magistrate but in appeal he was acquitted by the learned trial judge.

(2.) THE accused was Nazir of Phulbani District Collectorate from April 25, 1953 to may 15, 1957 on which date he was suspended. In March 1957 there was an order for his transfer to Kalahandi and his successor was to take charge from him as nazir. On May 1, 1957 the Officer-in-charge of Nizarat in the normal course did the monthly verification of cash and found the same to be correct. On May 3, 1957 the accused was relieved but he could not hand over charge as he was unable to pay or account for the cash in hand. On May 4, 1957 the accused's successor reported the matter to the Office Superintendent. The accused wanted time till may 5, 1957. Of course May 5, 1957 was a Sunday. On May 6, Monday, 1957 the accused again asked for time. The Additional District Magistrate rejected his prayer for time and directed the accused to handover charge on May 7, 1957. The accused however did not hand over charge and it was found that there was a total shortage of a sum of Rs. 11,147-46np. On May 14, 1957, the Additional district Magistrate filed a First Information Report against the accused. The accused was charged with the offence of criminal breach of trust and after investigation he was in due course committed and sent up for trial.

(3.) THE defence was this: There was no physical verification of cash-balance with book-balance by the officer in charge of the Nizarat on May 1. 1957. The authorities concerned were aware of the difference between book-balance and cash-balance which was already there even prior to May 1, 1957. The accused as nazir was dealing with various types of cash under different heads including the cash of Election Department, and he was receiving and disbursing them according to the directions of his superiors. In February, 1957 the General Election took place and during the election period there was heavy rush of expenditure and the accused had to disburse cash to the tune of Rs. 30,000/r. The accused's point is this that big sums were diverted from Nizarat cash for the purpose of meeting heavy expenditure for the Election Department. Moreover, according to the prevailing practice the nazir was to make arrangement for the camps of big officers visiting Phulbani and the money required for the said arrangements was to be paid from the Nizarat cash and subsequently recouped after the money was paid by the visiting officers. The Nazir was also making advance payment from Nizarat cash for purchase of articles for various departments and such amounts were supposed to be subsequently recouped. So when the Nazir was required to make over charge on may 7, 1957 he asked for time to adjust the accounts and demanded audit of the election Department accounts but he was not given time and the receipts and registers were taken away from him. Indeed, although he was asked to adjust the accounts within a limited time yet he was not allowed access to the receipts and registers. The defence case is that there was no misappropriation as alleged, and that on proper adjustment of accounts no difference would be found between the cash balance and the hook balance.