PRAFULLA KUMAR PANDA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has been convicted under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 409, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year on each count, both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that the Appellant was the Nazir of the Tahasil Office, Bargarh. While acting as such, he received a cheque bearing No. 23725 dated 16 -5 -1967 (Ext. 6) for Rs. 400/ - along with a forwarding letter (Ext. 4/1) on behalf of the Tahasildar, Bargarh, issued by the Bargarh Co -operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. towards satisfaction of a Tacabi loan taken by one Narayan Meher from the Tahasil office in the year 1966. It is alleged that the Appellant got it encashed through a peon (P.W. 6) on 21 -8 -1967 and misappropriated the whole amount. When the misappropriation came to light, the Appellant deposited the fun amount on 29 -12 -1970 to escape the liability. The Vigilance Inspector, after due investigation, lodged F. I. R. and investigation was taken up on the said F. I. R. After investigation, charge -sheet was submitted.

(3.) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the cheque for Rs. 400/ - (Ext. 6) was issued by the Bargarh Co -operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. in favour of the Tahasildar. This cheque related to a Tacabi loan granted to P.W. 1. This cheque was handed over to the Appellant along with a forwarding letter. Prosecution case is that the Appellant kept this cheque with him and got it encashed on 21 -8 -1967 by P.W. 6 Thereafter, P.W. 6 handed over the amount to the Appellant but the Appellant did not deposit it till 29 -12 -1970. The cheque Ext. 6 bears an endorsement the hand of the Appellant "received payment". This endorsement has admittedly been signed by the Tahasildar on 31 -7 -1967. It contains two signatures of P.W. 6 who encashed the cheque one on the side which has been attested by the Tahasildar on 31 -7 -1967 and another at the bottom. P.W. 6 also admits that those signatures are in his hand; one was given by him when the same was attested by the Tahasildar and the other was given by him in the Bank while encashing the cheque. Curiously enough under both the signatures the date has been written as 21 -8 -1967. It is not the case of the prosecution that the Appellant has put those dates. P.W. 6 says that the date found under his signature at the bottom on the back of the cheque which means at the time of encashment of the cheque is in his hand. He does not say anything about the date found under his signature which has been attested by the Tahasildar. The Tahasildar (P.W. 7) says that he signed and attested the signature of P.W. 6 and P.W. 6 had also signed in his presence and all this was done on 31 -7 -1967. P.W. 6 states that after he put his signature, this cheque was handed over to him for encashment and he put another signature at the Bank. The learned trial Court has held that it is not at all improbable that the Appellant after getting the endorsement of authorisation signed by P.W. 7 forget to hand over the cheque to P.W. 6 for encashment and by the date he handed over the cheque for encashment, the Bank people finding that there was no date of presentation, might have insisted on the date of presentation being noted and that is how a different date appears below the signature of P.W. 6 in Ext. 6. In view of the discussions about the statements of P.WS. 6 and 7, I hold that this finding of the learned trial Court is against materials on record and he has made only certain surmises and has taken it as a circumstance to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 6. But this is not at all a fact. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W. 6 is just the opposite.