STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BHUBANESWARA BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed at the instance of State against the judgment and order dated 03.11.1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawanipatna in G.R. Case No. 392 of 1990 (T.R. No. 113 of 1993) acquitting the accused -Respondent of the charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.').

(2.) AS it appears from the charge framed against the accused Respondent, the alleged occurrence took place on 30.06.1990. The Respondent was working as Cashier in the District Agriculture Office, Bhawanipatna during the period of occurrence. Prosecution case, in nut shell, is that on 10.07.1990 informant P.W.14, who was working as the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, received information from P.W.5 who was working as District Agriculture Officer -in -Charge, Bhawanipatna that the Respondent had misappropriated Government cash for which salary of. some of the employees for the month of June, 1990 could not be disbursed. P.W.14 made inquiry and physical verification of cash on 17.07.1990 upon which shortage of cash to the tune of Rs. 43,580/ - was detected. On the basis of F.I.R. Ext.8 lodged by P.W.14 at Town Police Station, Bhawanipatna, case was registered and P.W.16, Sub -Inspector of Police was entrusted with the investigation. In course of investigation witnesses were examined and seizures were affected. On completion investigation, charge - sheet was submitted against the Respondent for commission of offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C.

(3.) PROSECUTION in order to prove the charge examined sixteen witnesses and relied upon documents marked Exts.1 to 14. P.Ws.15 and 16 are police officers who were associated with the investigation. P.Ws.1 to 13 were officers and employees in the office of District Agriculture Office. P.W.8 was the District Agriculture Officer till 29.06.1990 when P.W.5 the Assistant Officer took charge from him. P.W.14 the informant has already been introduced. Documents relied upon by the prosecution included seizure lists, F.I.R. Ext.8, P.W.14's inquiry report Ext.9 and audit report Ext.14. No defence evidence was adduced.