RAMESH DUTT Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.1.2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Criminal Appeal No. 12 -Cr. A/10 of 1999 confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner -accused recorded by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan in Criminal Case No. 36/ 2 of 1996 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that Ramesh Chand, petitioner -accused was appointed as Branch Post Master at Bhatgarh, under the Branch Post Office Dadahu in the year 1990 -92. In his capacity as such, petitioner -accused received amounts from many persons deposited by them in their Saving Bank Accounts and Recurring Deposit Accounts, but he had not deposited those amounts with the Department nor made necessary entries in the relevant account books. On a complaint submitted to the higher authority, the Inspector, Post Offices, made an inquiry and found that the petitioner -accused though received Rs. 12,500 as the deposits in the Saving Bank Accounts (S.B. Account) and Recurring Deposit Accounts (R.D. Accounts) from Head Master, Government Middle School Bhatgarh; Bhim Chand (PW -7), Lal Chand, Tulsi Ram (PW -15) and Jatinder Sharma (PW -16) and Smt. Mehandi Devi (PW -18) during the year 1990 -92, but he had not deposited those amounts with the Department nor made necessary entries in the relevant registers and thus mis -appropriated the entire amounts as a public servant. On the basis of the inquiry report, the Superintendent Post Offices, Solan Division, made a complaint, Ext. PW -l/A to the Station House Officer, Dadahu Police Station about mis -appropriation of the amounts by the petitioner -accused. On the basis of the said complaint First Information Report Ext. PA came to be registered on 29.4.1994 at 10.30 a.m. against the petitioner under Section 409 IPC. The investigation of the case was partly conducted by Head Constable Ram Singh (PW -20). Sant Ram (PW 13), Station House Officer Renukaji during further investigation took into possession pass books of the depositors mark Exts. PW -13/A, PW -13/ B. PW -13/C, PW -7/B, PW -13/D and registers Exts. PW -13/E, PW -13/F, PW -13/G, PW -10/A and PW -1O/B from the custody of the petitioner -accused. Partly the investigation was also conducted by ASI Dharam Singh (PW -21) who recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner -accused as a public servant received amounts during the year 1990 -92 from the following persons and made necessary entries under his signature in their pass books without making corresponding entries in the relevant registers maintained by him or depositing the deposits with the post office department.

(3.) On completion of the investigation charge -sheet was prepared and submitted in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan by PW -13 against the petitioner -convict for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. On examination of the police report and other material placed on record the trial Magistrate found prima facie case against the petitioner -accused and framed charge against him under Section 409 IPC. The petitioner -accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. In trial the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. The petitioner -accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against him. He submitted that his thumb expression and specimen signatures were obtained by the police for sending them for comparison to the hand -writing expert. He pleaded that he has not mis -appropriated any amount as alleged by the prosecution as he was not present in his office on the day of occurrence. His defence was that he was Secretary of the Union of E.D.A. Staff of his Department and he used to agitate the rightful demands of the Union with the higher authorities and due to that reason the Government started removing the leaders of the Union in one way or the other in order to defeat their legitimate demands and rights. It was on account of the negative attitude of the Government that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, he led no defence evidence.