ADWAIT PRASAD NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 409 , Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three and half years and a fine of Rs. 5,0001/ - and in default to undergo further R.I. for nine months. He has also been convicted under Section 477A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, Petitioner was working as Naib Tahsildar of Circle No. 6 known as Rambag Circle within the Jajpur Tahsil from 1954 onwards. His duties included collection of rent and other Government dues from tenants by granting printed rent receipts, maintenance of relevant records of collection and depositing the collections in the Treasury or in the Sadar Tahsil office. During audit, defalcation of huge amounts and irregular maintenance of accounts were detected and on an information lodged by the Anchal Officer at the P.S. on 6 -1 -1959, police started investigation and found misappropriation of collections having been committed by the Petitioner during the years 1956, 1957 and 1958. Three separate charge sheets were -filed against the Petitioner in respect of amounts alleged to have been misappropriated during different calendar years. The present case relates to the alleged defalcation of Rs. 12,294.04 during the year 1957.

(3.) PETITIONER , while admitting that he was working as Naib Tahsildar during the relevant period and had made a few collections from some tenants by granting receipts state that the major part of the amounts had been collected by his muharrirs. In accordance with the prevailing practice, he was handing over volumes of receipt books containing blank receipts with his signature to the muharrir to go to moffasil, make collections and issue receipts by filling the appropriate volumes and putting the date. The Tahsildar (p.w. 94) and the Revenue Supervisor while visiting villages during the collection season used to take charge of the amounts collected and send receipts and challans from the Head office on which entries were being made in the appropriate collection register and cash book. He further pleads that an Government dues collected by him or which otherwise came into his possession have been paid to the superior officers or deposited in the Treasury and in that context alleges that he had made payments to p.w. 94 and the Revenue Supervisor from whom he obtained receipts. Lastly, he says that when he went on leave from 12 -12 -1958, he made over the total cash remaining with him amounting to Rs. 4,000/ - to the Revenue Supervisor.