P. RAGHUNATH PATRO Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 406, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, briefly stated, is that on a surprise checking of the rice mill of one Kunjalata Panda on 12 -5 -1972, 100 bags of paddy and 9 bags of rice were seized from within the premises of the rice mill of Kunjalata. As the stock was not mentioned in the stock register or in the accounts of the mill, after seizure, the stock was entrusted to one Sankar Narayan Patro P.W. 4 on that very day. As P.W. 4 expressed his inability to keep the stock in his custody, the Petitioner applied to take custody of the stock. Accordingly, the Petitioner was put in charge of the stock on 13 -5 -1972. vide Ext. 4. On 9 -10 -1972 there was verification of the stock by the officers of the Supply Department. On verification, it was found that there was shortage of 17 bags of paddy and 9 bags of rice. As such, charge -sheet was submitted against the Petitioner under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. The defence plea, as it transpires from the statement of the Petitioner, is a neat and clean denial of the prosecution case.

(3.) THERE is no dispute about the fact that 100 bags of paddy and 9 bags of rice were seized from the premises of the rice mill of Kunjalata Panda. The stock was kept in the custody of P.W. 4. On the following day, the Petitioner applied that the Zima in favour of P.W. 4 be cancelled and the stock might be kept in his Zima. This application was allowed which is evident from Exts. 3 and 4. Five months thereafter, verification of stock was made by the officers of the Supply Department. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the entire stock seized was kept inside the mill of Kunjalata. From the testimony of P.W. 1, the Inspector of Supplies, it appears that the stock of paddy and rice was all along inside the rice mill. The stock was not weighed. P.W. 2 was the Supervisor of Supplies. He has stated that the mill owner could not say as to who was the owner of the stock. The Tahasildar, P.W. 3, has stated that the stock was all along inside the mill and when he went for verification, the mill owner opened the lock where the stock had been kept. P.W. 4 who was the first custodian of the stock has stated that the seized stock was kept inside the mill and the mill was not locked. P.W. 7 is the investigating officer who has stated as follows: