STATE OF HP Vs. SATPAL PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved in the same. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

(2.) Both the accused were employees of the H.P Village Industries and Khadi Board, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the `Board'). On 4th July, 1981, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Dharamshala. In this letter, it was alleged that the Board got an enquiry conducted into the affairs of the Pragpur Centre of the Board, where the accused were working, through one Sh.S.K.Kochar, Village Industries Organizer. Sh.Kochar found irregularities in the functioning of the said Centre. It was found that 1763-25 kgs. of cotton worth Rs.14106/- which was meant to be given to the weavers was actually despatched from the Pragpur Centre to M/s.Manohar Weaving Factory, Jain Chowk, Nakodar through Bharat and Prince Goods Transport Companies. In this manner, the accused mis- utilized the cotton by sending it to the M/s.Manohar Weaving factory and embezzled a sum of Rs.11000- 88 paise by showing bogus payment to certain weavers. It was also alleged that a sum of Rs.13,073- 44 paise was drawn but never paid to the spinners. It was also found by Sh.S.K.Kochar that these two accused purchased uncertified cloth from M/s.Manohar Weaving Factory, Nakodar and sold the same by showing it to be as certified Khadi. Payment of Rs.8227/- was made to the aforesaid firm by getting draft of Rs.8227/- prepared from the Central Bank of India. Similarly, cheques dated 24.6.1978 for Rs.3136.23 paise and dated 4.8.1978 for Rs.5196-60 paise was got prepared from the State Bank of India, Dehra and this account was also not accounted for in the books of the Board. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR under Sections 408, 409, 420 and 468, IPC was registered. Since the embezzlement took place over a period of four years, four different challans were filed leading to four separate cases.

(3.) It would be pertinent to mention here that the allegations of the prosecution were that the offence in question took place in the late 1970s. The complaint was filed in the year 1981 and challan was filed in the year 1989. Thereafter, the case proceeded at a snail's pace and the prosecution did not make earnest efforts to examine all the witnesses and finally the learned Trial Court following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1998, Supreme Court 3281 closed the evidence of the prosecution on 10.12.1998 after numerous opportunities had been given to the prosecution to lead evidence.