STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has arisen after leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378(3) Cr. P.C in reference to the impugned judgment dated 29.6.1996, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II), Amb, District Una, in Case No. 42 -I/92 / 24 -II/94, acquitting the alleged accused from the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC

(2.) IN order to adjudicate the present appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was working as Secretary, Ado -Patehar Co -Operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. during the period from 1.1.1985 to 31.12.1985. Being Secretary, he was entrusted with receipt and payment of society money on behalf of the society, but the accused misappropriated an amount received from the account holders and to do so he prepared forged documents and made false entries in the accounts as well as pass books of various persons. He also withdrew money from the accounts of various account holders. In all he committed embezzlement of Rs. 16,375.29 paise during the aforesaid period. This misappropriation, fraud and cheating on the part of the accused came to light at the time of audit inspection of the society in the year 1986. Accordingly, case was registered against the accused and after investigation he was sent up to stand trial before the court of JMIC (II), Amb, District Una, under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

(3.) PW -1 Tilak Raj, is the Inspector of the Co -Operative Society, who deposed that he was working as Inspector of Co -Operative Society , Una, since 1992. Prior to him Achhar Singh was the Secretary and he is conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Achhar Singh. According to him, abstract of report Ex.PW1/A, special report Ex.PW1/B and details of amount Ex.PW1/C, are in the hand of Achhar Singh and also signed by him. PW -2 Om Parkash had been examined by the prosecution to prove that he had deposited Rs. 2000/ - with the accused, but, later on after audit he was told by the Inspector that money was not deposited in his account. He has identified his pass book Ex,PW2/A. PW -3 Sita Ram had denied his signatures in the register of society vide which loan of Rs. 600/ -had been entered in his name. PW -4 had deposed that he had taken loan from the society, but he had adjusted the entire loan amount by making payment of Rs. 144 -63 paise to the accused. Later on he came to know that money in question was not deposited in his account. PW -5 had been examined by the prosecution to prove statement of account and withdrawal forms. P Ws 6 to 12, 16 and 17 were the witnesses of the same facts as deposed by P Ws -2 to 4.P Ws 13, 14, 18 and 19 were the witnesses in whose presence finger prints and specimen of hand writing of various persons were taken by the police for the purpose of comparison with the thumb impression and hand writing in the record of the society. PW -15 was the Investigating Officer.