RAGHUNATH NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge under Sections 467, 471/114, 417/114 and 419/114, Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted under Section 379, Indian" Penal Code. He was sentenced to R.I. for 3 years under Section 467, Indian Penal Code and to a fine of Rs. 2500/ - or in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of 6 months. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years under Section 417/114, Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. No separate sentence was imposed under the other sections. Antaryami Biswal who was tried along with the Petitioner under Sections 417, 419, and 471, Indian Penal Code was acquitted. In appeal, the conviction and sentence under Sections 467, 471/114 and 417/114, Indian Penal Code were upheld. He was acquitted under Section 419/114, Indian Penal Code. The criminal revision has been filed against the older of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Appellate Judge.

(2.) PROSECUTION case may be stated at length to appreciate the contentions raised by the Petitioner. Raghunath Naik (Petitioner) was a lower division clerk -cum -cashier in the office of the B.D.O. Telkoi, in the district of Keonjhar during the relevant period. The B.D.O. (P.W.1) was away from headquarters from 6 -8 -969 to 9 -8 -1909. The cheque book (Ext. 1) usually remains in his custody. During his absence the B.D.O. gave the cheque book to the Head Clerk (P.W.16) for comparing the same with the cash book. On his return the B.D.O. noticed on 11 -8 -1969 that 5 cheques were missing from the cheque book. Out of the five cheques the counterfoil of only one cheque (Ext. 2) was in the book while the other counterfoils had been removed. The B.D.O. lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 3) in Telkoi P.S. He made enquiries in the office. On 11 -8 -1969 the Petitioner denied his knowledge about the missing cheques. After the forgery came to light, on the morning of 14 -8 -1969 the Petitioner fell prostrate before the B.D.O. and begged apology. He requested the B.D.O. to give him the office jeep so that he can replace the entire amount of money covered by the cheque. The Petitioner made this statement in the presence of the Sub -Assistant Registrar, Land Development Bank (P.W.2) and the Head Clerk of the B.D. D's office (P.W.16). On investigation it transpired that one of the missing cheques (Ext. 4) had been filled up by the Petitioner for Rs. 5910.70 in favour of Tirthabasi Sahu who admittedly takes contracts from the B.D.O. The signature of the B.D.O. on the cheque was forged. The Petitioner with the co -accused Antaryami Biswal (acquitted in the trial Court) went to the District Treasury, Keonjhar on 8..:8 -1969 and requested the permanent Treasury Accountant Kapila Sahu (P.W.12) to pass the cheque. As there was no time, the cheque could not be passed on that day. On 9 -8 -1969 the Petitioner approached Ramakanta Das (P.W.13) who was in' charge of the Treasury Accountant that day and requested him to pass the cheque. He represented that the co -accused Antaryami Biswal was Tirthabasi Sahu, the endorsee of the cheque. The cheque was passed being duly signed by the Treasury Officer. The Petitioner and the co -accused went to the Enfacement Clerk of the Treasury, Basudeba Nanda (P.W.15). Antaryami signed the enfacement register as Tirthabasi Sahu and received the cheque (Ext. 4) from him. The Petitioner identified Antaryami Biswal as Tirthabasi Sahu. The Petitioner used to attend the Keonjhar Treasury on many prior occasions in course of official duty and he was well -known to the treasury staff. (P. ws. 12, 13 and 15). On 8 -8 -1969 the Petitioner and the co -accused remained at Keonjhar Lodge of which p. w.6 was the Manager. The Petitioner signed the register of the Lodge. The Petitioner stayed there for a short -time and went somewhere else while Antaryami left the Lodge in the evening of 9 -8 -1969. While the Petitioner was under arrest, he led the I.O. to his house at Gobargada and produced cash of Rs. 1621. 75 in the presence of Mukunda Mahanta (P.W.11) and another on 14 -8 -1969. The I.O. seized the admitted and specimen writings of the B.D.O. and the Petitioner and sent them to the handwriting expert for comparison with the handwriting and signature appearing on the forged cheque. The hand writing expert gave opinion that the body of the cheque was filled up by the Petitioner and the purported signature on the cheque was not of the B D.O. He however could not say whether the alleged signatures of Tirthabasi Sahu on the back (If the cheque and other documents were of Antaryami.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge concurred with all the findings recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge excepting on finding No. 6. He did not accept the extra judicial confession on the ground that it was made before the superior officer.