MADHUSUDAN SWAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 467 and 409, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for one year for each of the offences, the sentences to run concurrently. Accused was the extra -departmental agent (Branch Postmaster) of Kulana Branch Post Office. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak, (p.w.1) had remitted Rs. 35 / - in favour of Baishnab Charan Lenka (p.w.14), a teacher of Soro, Special School, by Bhadrak Money -Order No. 2981 on 2 -12 -1960. Kshetrabasi Khandai (p.w.10) was the extra -departmental delivery agent (Postman). On 10 -12 -1960 the money -order form with the money was entrusted by the accused to p.w.10 for payment to the payee. As p.w.14 was not available, p.w.10 returned the money -order form and the money to the accused. Upto this stage, there is no dispute.

(2.) THE Courts below have concurrently found that the Petitioner forged the signatures and the endorsements purporting to have been done by p.w.14 and temporarily misappropriated the amount of Rs. 5 / - .

(3.) EX . B is to the following effect "Paid by me on 12 -12.1900". The endorsement had been signed by Kshetrabasi Khandai (1\. Khandai), p.w.10 at two places. P.w.10 admits that the endorsement and the signatures are his. He, however, says that the date "12" has been overwritten to "10" not by him but by somebody else. To the naked eye it appears that "12" has been converted to "10". The original "2" is, however, discernible. The evidence of p.w.10 that the original date was "12" is correct inasmuch as, according to the admitted case of both the prosecution and the defence, there was no payment on the 10th. The Petitioner himself states that on the 10th the money -order form was returned back by p.w.10 stating that the latter obtained the endorsements of the brother of p.w.14 as per Exs. 3/1 and 4/1 without making any payment of Rs. 35. The date of Ex. B must therefore be taken as 12 -12 -1960 and not 10 -12 -1960.