STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. ATAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that Atam Parkash accused-respondent was posted as Sub Post Master in the Post Office of Narot Jaimal Singh. One Jagdisho Rani wife of Kartar Chand opened an account in the post office on 10.5.1980 with initial deposit of Rs. 350/-. On 17.7.1980 she deposited an amount of Rs. 1100/- in her account through her husband. Kartar Chand filled a pay-in-slip form of Rs. 1100/- and the deposit was accepted by the respondent. The amount was correctly posted in saving account ledger but in the long-book be entered only an amount of Rs. 100/-. He also made an alteration in the pay-in-slip by reducing the amount of deposit to Rs. 100/- but the balance amount shown in that slip remained as Rs. 1450/-. In this way the respomdent misappropriated the amount of Rs. 1000/- to his own use. Subsequently the depositor made withdrawals of Rs. 1200/- and Rs. 200/- on 19-8-1980 and 26-6-1981 respectively bringing the balance to Rs. 50/-. At, the time of last transaction the respondent retained the pass-book with him and gave a receipt to the depositor on a plain paper with balance of Rs. 50/-. The pass- book was never handed over to the depositor and it was alleged that it had been lost but in fact it was destroyed by the respondent to eliminate the proof of misappropriation of Rs. 1000/-. A letter was written by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Gurdaspur to Station House Officer, Narot Jaimal Singh containing these facts on the basis of which a case under Sections 409/201/477-A IPC was registered against the respondent. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court of Shri Pritam Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, who tried the respondent for the above mentioned offences. Vide judgment dated 23.3.1984 it was held that the case against the respondent was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the respondent was acquitted which led the State of Punjab to file this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Shri S K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Shri Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the respondent and have perused the records.