SADASIV MOHAPATRA Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under S. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal dated 3/04/1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1983 setting aside the order of conviction dated 2/09/1983 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. Case No. 60 of 1982.

(2.) The criminal action was set in motion on filing of a complaint by appellant No. 1 who at the relevant time was working as the Secretary of Khurda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. on 6/05/1982 against the respondent under S. 406, I.P.C. in the Court of the J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar. It was alleged that the respondent was the President of Itipur Service Co-operative Society Ltd. and, he was also the Treasurer of appellant No. 2-Co-operative Society. He was authorised by the Board of Directors to draw a sum Rs. 28,250.00 from the Bhubaneswar Branch of the Khurda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. on behalf of the Society. He was also entrusted with the work of disbursing the said amount amongst the fifteen members of the Society towards the second instalment of dug-well loans. It was alleged that the respondent drew and received the cash on 6-5-1982 from the Bank, but he failed to distribute the cash amongst the loanee members and misappropriated the same. In spite of repeated approaches and notices issued by the Society, the respondent neither deposited the cash with the Society nor disbursed the same in favour of the loanee members. Consequently a complaint case was filed. The accused-respondent admitted the entrustment. He also admitted the fact that he could not distribute the money to the 15 members of the Society. His specific plea was that on 6-5-1982, after withdrawing the amount while he was returning from the Bank with cash, four persons robbed the cash from him by giving intoxicate drinks. Hence he could not discharge the trust.

(3.) Before the trial Court the prosecution examined three witnesses to prove the entrustment as well as non-disbursement of the amount and commission of breach of trust by the accused-respondent. At the other hand, to prove the case of robbery, the accused-respondent examined as many as 8 witnesses. On behalf of the prosecution 11 documents were exhibited and on behalf of the defence two documents were exhibited.