STATE Vs. HARIS CHANDRA KAR MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties in all these revision! are the same and the question of law that arises is common to all. Accordingly all the applications are disposed of by this one judgment.

(2.) THE opposite party has been committed to the court of Sessions for an offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. It appears that 18 F. I. Rs. were lodged in respect of 18 separate cases against the opposite party who is an ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Sankar, and all these 18 cases have been clubbed together to six cases out of which these six revisions arise

(3.) AT the trial a number of witnesses have been examined. The prosecution case is that the Gram Panchayat Auditor who audited the accounts of the above stated gram Panchayat from 10-2-63 to 16 3-1963 noticed some defalcations said to have been committed by the opposite party Harish Chandra and thereafter he filed the aforesaid F. I. Rs. It is said that after the audit was over, the cash book and other documents on the basis of which the audit report was prepared were stolen for which a separate theft case has also been started. At the stage of the trial in the absence of the cash-book the prosecution wanted to rely upon some loose sheets of accounts said to be the copies of the cash book prepared by the auditor at the time of his audit, and to produce the same in court obviously to be used by way of evidence by the auditor when examined in Court. The learned Assistant sessions Judge who was trying the case refused to accept these documents on the ground that they were loose sheets of paper and were not filed either at the time of investigation or in the committal stage but were filed at a late stage when a number of prosecution witnesses had already been examined. He also doubted the genuineness of these documents. According to him, copy of these documents not having been supplied to the accused as contemplated under Section 173 Cr. P. C. it would be highly prejudicial to the accused to accept those documents at this stage. He therefore, rejected the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution for acceptance of these documents.