LAWS(ORI)-1965-11-9

BANAMBER MAHARANA Vs. STATE

Decided On November 02, 1965
Banamber Maharana Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 - in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days. He has also been convicted under Section 477 -A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month, by an appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE Petitioner was working as a Sub -postmaster in the High Court Sub -post office at Cuttack sometime from 1957 -59. P.W. 3, Prahallad Kar, an advocate of this Court, has a Saving Bank account No. 86392 in the said sub -post office. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17 -8 -1959, P.W. 3 entrusted a sum of Rs. 160 - to the accused -Petitioner along with the passbook, Ext. 2 for deposit. The accused made relevant entries in the Savings Bank account and returned the pass -book to P.W. 3. Under the postal rules and as a part of his duty, the accused had to make corresponding entries in the Savings Bank Journal (ext. 3) on the date of deposit, but he instead of making any, entry on that date, viz., 17 -8 -1959 when he was entrusted with the money, showed the sum on 27 -8 -1959 and during this period he made temporary misappropriation of the said sum of Rs. 160 -. In course of verification of the savings bank account, this was detected by the Inspector of Post Offices. The accused was accordingly prosecuted under Section 409 for breach of trust and under Section 477 -A, Indian Penal Code for falsification of accounts.

(3.) IT appears from the Savings Bank Account that a sum of Rs. 160 - was in fact entered in the pass -book, Ext. 2, on 17 -8 -1959. If in fact, the money was returned to the depositor on that very day, there was no necessity for making any such entry. It further appears that P.W. 3 also made two other deposits between 17 -8 -1959 and 27 -8 -1959, that is, a sum of Rs. 60 - was deposited on 19 -8 -1959 and a similar amount was deposited on 24 -8 -1959. Both these sums were duly shown in the Savings Bank Account as also in the Savings Bank Journal. It further appears that after the deposit on 24 -8 -1959, the amount of total deposit was shown to be Rs. 322.62 which included the sum of Rs. 160 - deposited by P.W. 3 on 17 -8 -1959. Thus, the plea of the accused that the sum of Rs. 160 - was returned to the depositor (p.w. 3) on 17.8.1959 must be rejected as false. Moreover, no suggestion was made to P.W. 3 in course of his evidence that he was given back the sum of Rs. 160 - on 17 -8 -1959. The plea of pressure of work advanced by the accused cannot also be accepted. It is in evidence that an error -book is maintained in r each post office wherein mention of any mistake or error committed in course of the transaction is made and such a book was also maintained in the post -office in question. But the accused has no where made any mention of any such error, if in fact he committed any. His plea, however, is that there is another error book, but he is not sure whether he had made any such entry in the said book. In his 342 statement he took an evasive plea that he might have made such an entry in the said book. In any event, it was for him to call for that document and to bring to the notice of the Court if any such entry was recorded by him in any error -book. He took the bold plea that he returned the sum of Rs. 160 - to P.W. 3 on the same day and his further plea was that P.W. 3 after taking back the money on 17 -8 -1959 again sent the amount on 25 -8 -1959, but with a wrong pass -book and the following day being a holiday, he entered the amount only on 27 -8 -1959. But nothing was elicited from P.W. 3 on this point and it is difficult to accept that a wrong pass -book was given by P.W. 3 for making deposit of the amount. The plea of the accused on this point also is wholly false and cannot be accepted. Thus, it must be held that the accused was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 160 - for deposit on 17 -8 -1959, and he committed temporary misappropriation of the said amount until 27 -8 -1959.