STATE Vs. BIDYADHAR ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused -Respondent Bidyadhar Rout was Sarpanch of Bahalda Gram Panchayat. He along with the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat was charged under Sections 409 34, 467 54 and 477 -A 34, Indian Penal Code for having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 1200, having used as genuine a receipt knowing it to be a forged document and having falsified the cash book account of the Gram Panchayat all with intent to defraud in the circumstances hereinafter stated. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat was acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj on the finding that he did not share the common intention to misappropriate the amount or to forge the voucher receipt and that the Secretary scribed the contents of the voucher receipt and made the entry in the account book with reference to the voucher receipt as he was merely discharging clerical duties. The Sarpanch accused -Respondent herein was convicted of the charges and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence of misappropriation of the money and for one and a half years for forgery and using as genuine the forged document, and for one year for falsification of accounts -all sentences to run concurrently. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj -Keonjhar reversed the decision of the learned trial Judge and acquitted the accused Sarpanch of all charges.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the Sarpanch accused Respondent herein is that on June 26, 1960 he fabricated a receipt Ext. 5 purporting to show that Hadibandhu Mahanta, who is said to have been a Ward Member of Bahalda Gram Panchayat, received in advance a sum of Rs. 12001 for supply of asbestos sheets from Tata for the purpose of construction of a house for Bahalda Gram Panchayat and that a false entry was made in the account book of the Gram Panchayat accordingly. Hadibandhu Mahanta who was called as a witness as P.W. 8 denied his signature on the forged receipt Ext. 5 he said that he did not grant this receipt and never signed on the revenue stamp affixed to it. The prosecution also examined a handwriting expert as P.W. 3 who is Government Examiner of Questioned Documents his opinion is that the signature on Ext. 5 is not in the hand writing of Hadibandu Mahanta.

(3.) IS the defence version probable? The evidence of P.W. 8 Hadibandhu Mahanta supported by the evidence of the handwriting expert P.W. 3 shows that the receipt Ext. 5 was forged. If the receipt Ext. 5 was forged then the alleged payment to P.W. 8 Hadibandhu Mahanta stands disproved.