T PURUSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of an appellate judgment confirming conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 409, I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years for having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs.13,866.10 paise.

(2.) The petitioner was serving as Branch Postmaster in Haripur Branch Post Office. It has been found by both the courts below that in his capacity as the Branch Postmaster, the petitioner received Rs.4,700/- from P.W. 8,Rs. 2,510/- from P.W.9, Rs.1,960/-fromP.W.10 and Rs.4,803.10 paise from P.W. l2Ts wife for deposit in their respective savings bank accounts. But in fact he entered deposit of Rs.47, and Rs.601- respectively in the savings bank accounts of P. W s. 8 and 9 and did not enter any deposit in the savings bank accounts of P.W. 10 and wife of P.W. 12 and thus the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.13866.10 paise. Both the courts below have elaborately dealt with the facts and evidence appearing in the case for arriving at a finding of misappropriation of the aforesaid amount.

(3.) During his examination under section 313, Cr. P.C. the petitioner has not disputed entrustment of Rs.4700/- by P.W. 8, Rs.2520/- by P.W. 9, Rs.1960/- by P.W. 10 and Rs.4,803.10 p. by wife of P.W. 12 for the purpose of deposit in their respective savings bank accounts. It is well proved by P.Ws. 8 to 10 and 12, their respective savings bank pass books, the branch post office books of account and the journal despatched by it that out of the aforesaid entrusted amounts, the petitioner has entered deposit of Rs.107/- only, Rs.47/- in the savings bank account of P.W. 8 and Rs.60/- in the savings bank account of P.W.9. When such laches on his part were put to the petitioner during his examination under section 313, Cr. P.C., he has taken the plea that on account of ill-health he had not entered the amounts in the books of account and he has in fact not misappropriated any sum. It is not the case of the petitioner and there is also no evidence to the effect that the cash entrusted was there in the branch post office and there was only a defect in maintenance of the books of account or in making entries in the respective pass books and the branch office journals. It reveals from the record that when the investigation of the case was in progress, the petitioner had deposited the entire amount alleged to have been misappropriated. Admittedly he was public servant at the relevant time and being entrusted with cash in his capacity as such public servant, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the entrusted amounts. No manifest error of law or defect in procedure could be pointed out at the hearing. Thus the petitioner has been rightly convicted for the offence under section 408, I.P.C. and considering the amount misappropriated, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years cannot be said to be either high or excessive.