RAMCHANDRA NANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner stands convicted under Sections 406 and 477A, Indian penal Code and sentenced "to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to undergo S. I. for 3 months on each count. Out of the fine amount realised a sum of Rs. 900/ - is to be paid to the Lord Balunkesha Mohesh as compensation under Section 357, Code of Criminal Procedure (new)." This has been confirmed in appeal in the following words:

(2.) ADMITTEDLY for leasing out some lands of Shri Balunkesh Mohesh, P.W. 2 paid Rs. 600/ - and P.W. 3 Rs. 300/ - on 17 -10 -1958 and 29 -10 -1958 respectively. The prosecution alleged that these two amounts have been misappropriated by the Petitioner omitting the same from the accounts of Shri Balunkesh Mohesh.

(3.) THE prosecution examined 10 witnesses and the defence 5 Out of the prosecution witnesses, P.W. 10 is the complainant and the Petitioner has examined himself as D.W. 5. It may be stated here that the accounts of Shri Balunkesh Mohesh was taken over by the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Department sometime in the year 1970. The management was taken over sometime in 1961. Thereafter some Inspectors were appointed to look after the management of the deity. On 11 -8 -1972 P.W. 10 was appointed as the Executive Officer. In the meantime, the accounts of the deity has been regularly audited by the Endowment Department. On 13 -11 -1972, P.W. 10 filed the present complaint wherein he alleged that the Petitioner had misappropriate Rs. 5,930. 55p. Therein it was also specifically stated that they had not moved the Police in respect of this alleged misappropriation. The Petitioner has admitted to have received Rs. 600/ - from P.W. 2 on 17 -10 -1968 and from P.W. 3, Rs. 300/ - on 29 -10.1958. Accordingly both the Courts held that the entrustment having been admitted, it was incumbent on the Petitioner -accused to explain how he expended that amount but in that he had failed. The trying Court held that Exts. D and E are manufactured. The learned lower appellate Court held that even if Exts. D and E were genuine yet he is guilty of having misappropriated the amount. Further the finding of the learned lower appellate Court was that since there has been no charge for falsification of Exts D and E, the conviction under Section 477 -A, Indian Penal Code in respect of falsification of Exts. D and E cannot stand. All the same, he maintained the conviction on the finding that the Petitioner had falsified the accounts not in respect of Exts. D and E, but in respect Ext. 26.