PELEILIE PETER ANGAMI Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, received a cheque for Rs. 39,680/ - dated 22 -3 -1968. It was issued by the Border Road Task Force and was meant for disbursement among ex -soldiers. The appellant was working as Secretary of District Soldiers' Sailors' and Airmen's Board, Kohima District, at the relevant time. The cheque was therefore handed over to him. The prosecution case is that the appellant obtained the money on 30 -3 -68, but instead of disbursing the money to the persons for whom it was meant, he misappropriated the same. The matter came to light on receipt of some complaints from ex -soldiers to the Deputy Commissioner, who got the matter enquired by a Board of Enquiry headed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. The Board was of the view that the present was a clear case of breach of trust and so proper action may be taken against the appellant. The police was informed about the matter on 23rd July, 1969 and the charge -sheet was submitted on 30th May, 1970. In the trial that ensued, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and the defence four. One of the PWs had been examined as a Court witness also. The learned trial court being satisfied about the guilt of the appellant has convicted him Under Section 409, IPC and has awarded a sentence of R. I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 15,000/ -, in default, to R. I. for further the years.

(2.) SHRI Sarma has advanced these submissions before me :1) The prosecution was bad in the eye of law as the same had been launched without sanction contemplated by Section 197(1) of the old Cr.PC (2) There is no evidence of entrustment of the money to the appellant; and (3) evidence of misappropriation is totally lacking. As some reliance has been placed by the learned trial court on the confessional statement of the appellant, a submission has also been made that the statement recorded on 30 -9 -1969 by PW 1 was not really confessional in nature and as such should not have been admitted against the appellant.

(3.) THE submission relating to entrustment cannot also be accepted as this is amply borne out by the evidence on record. PW 2, who was the Cashier of the State Bank of India and was reexamined as CW 1, has clearly stated that the amount in question was paid to the appellant. This had been done on the strength of an authority letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner which was marked as Ext. P -8 in the case. This document bears the endorsement 'Received Payment' in the hand of the appellant and is dated 30 -3 -1968. In his examination Under Section 364 of the old Cr.P.C. the appellant had admitted receipt of the cheque in question by him, though he had denied that he had obtained the amount. But on the face of the aforesaid contemporary document and the evidence on record, no doubt can be entertained on this score.