STATE OF ORISSA Vs. CHITTARANJAN PADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.1986 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir in G.R. Case No.533 of 1979/T.R. No.295 of 1985 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Sections 409 and 477 -A, IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that accused -respondent was working as Peon in the District Central Co -operative Bank Limited, Bolangir. He was ordered to act as Secretary of the Society. Accordingly, he took over the charge of the office of Secretary of the society on 21.02.1978 from one Nityananda Pradhan, S.F.D.A. Inspector of the Puintala Block. The informant -Rashbihari Mishra, Extension Officer, Puintala Block and Administrator of the Society (P.W. 2) got information in the month of February, 1979 that the accused -respondent was collecting loans and not depositing the same in the District Central Co -operative Bank, Bolangir. To ascertain the correct position, P.W.2 asked the accused -respondent to produce the cash book and receipt book of the society for his verification, but he refused to do so. P.W.2 brought this fact to the notice of the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Sonepur on 04.02.1979. The Assistant Registrar inspected the society before whom the accused -respondent produced the cash book and receipt book. Though the cash book showed a balance of Rs.14,419.08, the accused -respondent could not produce the amount. Thereafter, the accused -respondent was placed under suspension on 13.02.1979 and was directed to hand over charge to Subodh Bag, Assistant Secretary of the society by 15.02.1979, but without handing over the charge, the accused -respondent remained absent from the society unauthorizedly. Some days thereafter, he handed over the records and after verification of records, FIR was lodged by P.W.1 and ultimately charge -sheet was filed under Section 409 and 477A, IPC.

(3.) IN order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as twenty -four witnesses and relied on 42 exhibits. The respondent examined one witness in support of his plea.