SURJAMONI MISRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 409/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ -; in default, to undergo R.I. for one month more.

(2.) ACCORDING to prosecution Petitioner was the Junior Accountant in the D.T.M. office at Rourkela, while one Bafat Khan was the Senior Accountant and Rajkishore Singh Samant was the Assistant Cashier. A.K. Singh (p.w. 5) who was serving as a driver in the State Transport at Rourkela on a monthly salary of Rs. 98/ - submitted his resignation (Ex. 8) on 25 -4 -1961 and left service with effect from 3 -5 -1961. Petitioner as Junior Accountant while preparing the establishment pay bill for the month of June 1961 included therein the pay of p.w. 5, who was no longer in service. Rajkishore Singh Samant as Asst. Cashier drew the amount from the Treasury and both he and Petitioner are said to have misappropriated the amount by forging the signature of p.w. 5 in the acquittance roll Bafat Khan, Rajkishore Singh Samant and Petitioner were put on trial for an offence under Section 409/34, Indian Penal Code. All of them pleaded not guilty. The defence of Petitioner was that as usual, be prepared the pay bill for the month of June on the basis of the absentee statement of the month of May, and his duty being confined to preparation of the bill, he had nothing to do with withdrawal or disbursement of the amount, and as such, the charge against him cannot be sustained. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case, acquitted Bafat Khan, while he convicted and sentenced Petitioner and Rajkishore, as stated above. Petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) AS transpires from the evidence, the practice prevailing in that office is that Petitioner used to prepare the establishment pay bill on receipt of the absentee statement and thereafter submit it for scrutiny and check by the Senior Accountant. After the bill was so checked, it used to be made over to the Cashier or in his absence to the Asst. Cashier whose duty it was to en cash it and disburse the money. The duties of Petitioner did not include drawing, disbursement or handling of cash in any other manner. In this case, it has been proved that p.w. 5 left service with' effect from 3 -5 -1961, and as such, he was not entitled to get any salary for the month of June. The evidence of p.ws. 2 and it also proves that while preparing the bill No. 11/p., dated 30.6.1961, Petitioner included an amount of Rs. 98/ - as salary of p.w. 5. Ex 5/1 is the signature of Petitioner in the acquittance roll (Ex. 5) in token of his having prepared the bill. The Courts below have negatived the Petitioner's defence that he prepared the bill on the basis of the absentee statement for the month of May and this finding is not seriously challenged. The evidence of p.ws. 2 and 3 proves that this bill was encashed by Rajkishore on 3 -7 -1961 who has made an entry to that effect at page 392 of the Cashier's hand book (Ex. 6) and disbursement of the amount of Rs. 98/ - to p.w. 5 has been shown to have taken place on 5 -7 -1961 at page 19 of Vol. II of Ex. 6. Thus, the prosecution evidence only establishes that Petitioner prepared the pay bill wrongly including the Amount of Rs. 98/ - towards the salary of p.w. 5 and that Rajkishore encashed it in the Treasury and received the amount which he entered in his own cash book and showed disbursement of the same to p.w. 5, though actually no such disbursement had been made. On these facts, the point for consideration is whether Petitioner can be saddled with joint criminal liability for, an offence of criminal breach of trust.