SHYAMSUNDAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Sambalpur -Sundergarh maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 409, Indian Penal Code and the sentences of imprisonment and fine passed on him by the Sub -divisional Magistrate of Panposh.

(2.) THE Petitioner was the Sarpanch of Kuermunda Grama Panchayat from the year 1957 till 2 -8 -1963. In that capacity he was in charge of the cash of the Panchayat though the accounts used to be maintained by the Panchayat Secretary (p.w. 3). The Supervisor of the Grama Panchayat (p.w. 2) audited the accounts of the Panchayat on three dates, namely, 18 -2 -1960, 25 -4 -1960 and 29 -7 -1960. On the date of the first audit he found that the cash on hand was short to the extent, of Rs. 1609.86 nP. when checked with reference to the book balance. The Petitioner was unable to produce the cash but at the next audit date, viz., 19 -2 -1960 he gave a statement in writing (ext. 7) to the effect that he spent the money for other purposes and that he would deposit the amount within fifteen days. Again, on the date of the second audit, viz, 25 -4 -1960 there was shortage of cash to the extent of Rs. 4405.03 nP. On this occasion also the Sarpanch was unable to produce the money but he gave a statement in writing (ext. 8) saying that he spent the money for other purposes and that he would require 15 days time to collect the funds and deposit the same. The third audit actually commenced on 1 -7 -1960 and continued till 28 -7 -1960. It was eventually found that though the book balance was shown as Rs. 7184.01 nP. the actual cash on hand was Rs. 1621.10 nP. as shown in the postal pass book, revealing a shortage of Rs. 5562.91 nP. This amount also was not produced, but on the next date, viz., 29 -7 -1960 the Petitioner gave a statement in writing (ext. 3) admitting that the said sum was in his hands and praying for some time to produce the same. He further admitted in his statement that the first shortage of Rs. 1609.86 nP. as noticed in the audit that took place on 18 -2 -1960, was due to his having spent the money for private purposes. Some time was given to him to pay the money but he failed to pay the money, and then a report was sent to the Police on the basis of which the case was investigated.

(3.) THE charge against the Petitioner related to the offence of criminal breach of trusting respect of the sum of Rs. 5562.91 nP. after the shortage was noticed on the date of the third audit, viz., 20.7 -1960. Admittedly this sum was entrusted to the Petitioner and he must give a reasonable explanation to account for the same. It is true that the cash book did not show how this money was actually spent and it is also true that in his three statements to the auditor (exts. 7, 8 and 3) he had taken the plea that the money was with him and that he would account for it. In ext. 3 he further admitted that the shortage of Rs. 1600/ - and odd noticed on the date of the first audit was due to his having spent the money for his own private purposes. As regards the shortage of Rs. 5562.91 nP. notice an the date of the third audit he did not give any explanation. But as the charge did not relate to that shortage found on the first occasion, (which amount was actually shown in the post office pass book on the date on the third audit), I need, not examine here whether there was a temporary criminal breach of trust in respect of that sum on the Petitioner's admission that the money was utilised for his own private purposes. I am concerned here only with the simple question as to whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was criminal breach of trust in respect of the admitted shortage of Rs. 5562.91 nP. on the date of the third audit, namely, 29 -7 -1960.