STATE OF HP Vs. TARSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since common question of law and facts arise in these cases. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

(2.) The prosecution case is that a letter dated 6.9.1988 written by the Chief Executive Officer of the H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) was received in the Police Station, Una on 16.9.1988. In this letter it was alleged that accused Tarsem Lal while functioning as Incharge of the sale shop of the Board at Una had embezzled various amounts from time to time. This embezzlement was detected during the course of audit. It was alleged that during 1985 to 1987 a shortage of Rs. 1248.20p was detected in cash/stock for 1985-86. It was also alleged that on 31.3.1987 Rs. 25,316.70p were shown in the cash book whereas it should have been deposited in the bank as per the Rules. It was further alleged that the accused had made the payment of rent amounting to Rs. 937.50p without approving the sanction of the higher authorities for hiring the building. Further the prosecution case is that bills amounting to Rs. 23,937.04p were paid without getting the same passed from the competent authority. Similar embezzlement of Rs. 25,000/- was made during the period 1987-88. Other allegations of similar type have been alleged. The accused was given opportunity to explain his position and make good the loss suffered by the Board and on his failure to do so a complaint was lodged in the year 1988.

(3.) On the basis of this complaint F.I.R. was lodged and investigation was done by the police. After investigation challan under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused. Four challans were filed to cover the different periods. The accused has been acquitted by the learned trial Court in all the four cases. Hence the present appeals.