NACHHATTER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NACHHATTAR Singh petitioner was a clerk in the office of the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer at Kotkapura. Kamlesh Kumar, Accountant of that office, was on leave and during that period the petitioner was attending to accounts work, including preparation of bills and withdrawal of amounts. On December 18, 1973, he allegedly prepared two bills Exhibits P -1 and P -2 for Rs. 8,544.40 and Rs. 1483.50 respectively purporting to be under the signatures of Balbir Singh Sandhu, Assistant Soil Conservation officer, Kotkapura, and presented them to the Treasury Office for clearance. Admittedly, he received payment of those bills from the State Bank of Patiala and on the same day, as stated by him, handed over the cash to Balbir Singh Sandhu vide receipt Exhibit D. 1. The petitioner was charged for having committed offences under sections 467, 471 and 409, Indian Penal Code, because the case of the prosecution originally was that the money received by the petitioner representing bills Exhibits P -1 and P -2 had not been accounted for by him. The learned trial Magistrate, however, held that the petitioner had been able to prove that he had paid the amount of the bills to Balbir Singh Sandhu through receipt Exhibit D -1 and thus charge under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, had not been made out. The learned Magistrate also held that there was no evidence to show that the disputed bills had been prepared by the petitioner and, therefore, charge under section 467, Indian Penal Code also had been held not proved against the petitioner. The only charge proved against the petitioner was under section 471, Indian Penal Code, on the finding that the petitioner had used the bills Exhibits P -1 and P -2 as genuine and received payment from the treasury. When the conviction of the petitioner under section 471, Indian Penal Code, has been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot the point to be considered in this revision petition is whether the petitioner had received payment under bills Exhibits P -1 and P -2 by using those as genuine, fraudulently or dishonestly, which he had the knowledge or reason to believe to be forged documents

(2.) THE receipt Exhibit D -1 has been found to be executed by Balbir Singh Sandhu PW and reads as follows: "Receipt. Received cash Rs. ten thousand twenty seven and paise 90 from Shri Nachhattar Singh Clerk relating to two bills, amounting to Rs. 8544.40 and Rs. 1483.50 which has been encashed today 18.12.73 from State Bank of Patiala, Faridkot, under my orders. Receipt has been used so that it may be used at the time of necessity. Date 18.12.73 Sd/ - Balbir Singh Sandhu, Asstt. Soil Conservation Officer, Kotkapura -III Stamp.

(3.) HERE the receipt itself mentioned that the sum is the same as was drawn by the petitioner on the basis of those bills, purported to have been signed by Balbir Singh Sandhu, though not proved to the hilt. The money was received by the petitioner admittedly and as Exhibit D -1 discloses was handed over to Balbir Singh Sandhu. In this situation, what transpired in the office of the Treasury Officer can give rise to a lot of speculation. Be that as it may, there was no element of fraud so far as the petitioner is concerned. And equally, there could not be any dishonesty. He does not seem to have caused any wrongful gain to any person or wrongful loss to another. However, the Courts below have held against him soley on the ground that the petitioner had not made relevant entries regarding those bills in the cash book and were not shown to have been paid to the actual payees. This at best could be an omission or dereliction of duty of the petitioner as an accountant. Merely because he did not keep his cash book in order that did not lead to the conclusion that he knew or had reason to believe that the bills were forged documents which he had fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine. It is, however, the petitioner's case that he was told by Balbir Singh Sandhu that the accounts books would be got completed by him with regard to those bills. That explanation may or may not be plausible, but this fact alone would not do to establish the guilt of the petitioner under section 471 Indian Penal Code. The case against the petitioner being doubtful, he has to be acquitted of the charge.