V RAMA SHANKAR PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Revenue Inspector in Jeypore Town in the district of Koraput. The Tahsildar, Jeypore (P.W.5), lodged a report (Ext. 11) stating therein that the petitioner as the Revenue Inspector had collected a sum of Rs. 763/- from the Raja Saheb of Jeypore towards land revenue on 22.3.1971 and also passed on a receipt (Ext. 6/1) to that effect, But he accounted for only Rs. 163/- by interpolating the entry in the register (Ext. 3) and thereby misappropriated the sum of Rs. 600/-. It was also stated in the said report that later on the petitioner deposited the defalcated sum of Rs. 600/- as well as Rs. 60/- towards interest with P.W. 10 on 30.10.1972 under Ext. 21 in the name of Raja Saheb. Thus there had been a temporary misappropriation for the period from 22.3.1971 to 30.10.1972 and there had been forgery committed by the petitioner. On receipt of the said report which was treated as F.I.R., the Officerin-charge, Jeypore Police Station, registered a case and took up investigation. In course of investigation, he seized several documents, examined some witnesses and on completion of investigation filed the charge sheet and the accused-petitioner stood his trial being charged under Sections 409 and 466, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The accused took his defence that he did collect the Sum of Rs. 763/- and also deposit the said amount in the official account and there had been no manipulation of record by him.

(3.) The prosecution examined 16 witnesses of whom P.W.5 is the Tahsildar, Jeypore, who lodged the F.I.R. on 22.10.1979; P.W. 6 was the Revenue Supervisor attached to Jeypore Tahsil from 1970 to 1972; P.W.7 was the Manager of the Raja Saheb; P.W.8 was the Allditor who allied the office of Jeypore Tahsil on 17.4. 1978; P.W.9 was the Loan Mohurir who had accompanied the accused to the office of Raja Saheb on 22.3.1971 when the alleged payment was made: P.W. 10 was the Revenue Inspector of Jeypore Town Circle working on 30.10.1972; P.W.l1 was the Tehsildar, Jeypore Tahsil, on 12.5.1978 and P,Ws.12, 14, 15 and 16 arc the different in vestigating officers. P. W.13 was a constable and the rest of the precaution witnesses were different seizure witnesses. Relying upon the evidence of P. Ws. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 as well as the relevant documents, namely Exts. 6/1 & 6/2, Ext. 3, Ext. 13 and Ext. 21, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Sections 409 and 466, Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted him thereunder. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count and directed that the sentences would run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge uphold the confection and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate after discussing the evidence more particularly the evidence on which the Maltreat relied upon.