KULAMANI DAS Vs. RASABEHARI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner's conviction under Section 409, I.P.C. and sentence of two years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for further period of three months having been confirmed in appeal, he has preferred this revision.

(2.) IT is the case of the opposite party -complainant that the Petitioner was the Head Cashier of United Bank of India, Ranihat Branch at Cut tack on 3 -9 -1980 on which date at 3 p.m. he informed P.W. 2, Branch Manager of the Bank, of Rs. 61,000/ - to be missing from the drawer inside the cash cage. Police was immediately informed by the Manager of the Bank who came there forthwith and on verification, cash amount of Rs. 61,000/ - was found missing. The letter of the Manager to the Officer -in charge of Mangalabag Police Station was treated as the F.I.R. On verification during the same day, another sum of Rs. 100/ - was also found short in the cash in the strong room. After investigation, the police submitted a final report that the Petitioner had misappropriated the amount but no case under Section 380, I.P.C. had been made out against him. The final report having been accepted, P.W. 2 filed a complaint against the Petitioner under Section 409, I.P.C.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below on analysis of the evidence came to hold that the fact of entrustment of the amount to the Petitioner was admitted and that there was no possibility of anybody else committing theft of the amount during his absence and hence found him guilty of the charge. In reaching such conclusion, the appellate Court has relied on the evidence of P.W. 3, Accountant of the Bank that inside the cash cage nobody besides the Petitioner sit and that the cage has Godrej locking arrangement from inside apart from the arrangement for putting lock from outside. The cash cage was locked from inside when the police came and would not open by pushing the same. It is the Petitioner who inserted his hand inside the pigeon -hole and turned the knob of the lock and opened the cage door. Inside the cage there were two drawers with locking arrangements in which the case used to be kept. While the upper drawer was closed and was opened by the key supplied by the Petitioner and was found containing currency notes of small denominations, the lower drawer containing currency notes of higher denominations was found open without being locked. The other circumstances taken into consideration by the appellate Court to sustain the conviction of the Petitioner were that (1) in Ext. 3, the written report submitted by the Petitioner, he stated that he left the cash cage after the banking hours on the date of occurrence after locking both the drawers, the cash box as also the door of the cash cage; (2) the fact that the main gate of the Bank remains closed from 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. and was closed on that day and no public are allowed inside the Bank during break hours and from the evidence it was found that the Petitioner had left the cash cage earlier than others and had returned also earlier than others; and (3) that P.W. 2 to 4 were co -workers of the Petitioner and there is nothing on record to show that they were inimically disposed against him. Though Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has extensively taken me through the evidence yet since I find that there is no infirmity in appreciation of the evidence by both the Courts below and I agree with the conclusions reached by them, it is not necessary to refer to the evidence in detail.