STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MOHINDER BHOGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-respondent Mohinder Bhogi Lal Shah was appointed as a clerk in the Bank of India, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, on 23rd Sept., 1963. On 24th April, 1970 he was assigned the duty of a Cashier and with effect from 1st July, 1974 was appointed special Assistant in the Bank. The case of the prosecution is that on 3rd May, 1973 the accused introduced a Saving Bank Account No. 9442 in the name of one Jasbir Singh and made over the account opening form to Tarlok Sood, the then special Assistant, for verification of the signature of the said Jasbir Singh, telling him that the customer was sitting with him. Tarlok Sood in good faith verified the signature of Jasbir Singh with an initial amount of Rs. 10.00 and on the same day i.e. 3.5.1973 deposited a cheque for Rs.13,500.00 in the account. Further sums were also deposited in the account from time to time, but none of these entries was supported by any credit voucher which appeared to have been destroyed by the respondent. To account for the credit entries of Rs. 1,20,000.00, in all, in the aforesaid account, certain debit entries were made in Ledger No. 40 in four different accounts. On 20th Jan., 1975, a pay-in-slip for Rs.20,000 was posted in the saving account number of Jasbir Singh by one Shri D.S. Mangat but no corresponding debit entry was made. On the same day, a cash withdrawal of Rs. 20,000 was also made from the said account and according to the prosecution case the amount was withdrawn by the respondent. It is further the case of the prosecution that the respondent, in all, defrauded the Bank to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000.00 by making changes in the relevant books of account. On these allegations the respondent was charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal code.

(2.) In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses besides producing voluminous documentary record, the prosecution case was then put to the accused under section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure but he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded false implication. He also produced a certificate Exhibit D-1 certifying to the death of Jasbir singh. The accused further admitted that he had in all good faith introduced the said Jasbir singh as a customer of the Bank and he had not mis-appropriated any amount belonging to the Bank and, as a matter of fact, it was one Patel and Tarlok Sood aforesaid who had been responsible for the fraud and had managed to implicate him instead. The respondent, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. The trial Magistrate Shri D. Chatha convicted the respondent and sentenced him to various term of imprisonment. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal and Shri R.L. Anand, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, allowed the appeal on the ground that the judgment did not comply with the provisions of Sec. 354 Crimial P.C. inasmuch as that the points in issue had not been properly appreciated and there had been no discussion with regard to the evidence and having held as above, remanded the case to the trial Magistrate for re-decision on a reappraisal of the evidence already on record. The case was thereafter taken up by Shri G.C. Suman, the chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, at the relevant time and the accused-respondent was acquitted on the ground that no case under Sec. 409 or 468 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against him. It is against this judgment that the present appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Punjab.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. We are of the opinion that the judgment rendered by Shri G.C. Suman suffers from the same infirmity as the one rendered by Shri D.S. Chatha. Sec. 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a judgment shall contain the, points of determination and the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. We are of the opinion that this provision has been clearly violated while rendering the impugned judgment. The judgment proceeds on the basis that no offence was made out on the facts. To our mind, this finding can only be recorded on a full appreciation of the evidence on record. We are of the opinion that the trial Magistrate has not cared to examine the evidence in its true perspective and more particularly that of P.W.5 (D.V. Hardiwar), the Area Manager of the Bank of India. The evidence of the other witnesses is also material. No discussion thereon has been made. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not possible to sustain the judgment in question.