STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DIWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has appealed against the judgment dated 20th July, 2006 of learned Special Judge, Chamba, whereby Respondent Diwan Chand, who was tried for offences, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for allegedly mis -appropriating a sum of Rs. 3754/ -, on account of difference between the actual sale proceeds of fuel wood, weighing 6980.19 quintals and the amount accounted for by him, out of the aforesaid sale proceeds.

(2.) PROSECUTION 'scase, which led to the trial of the Respondent, may be stated. Respondent was a Forest Guard in the Forest Division, Killar (Pangi). In that capacity, he was working in fuel depot at Killar during the year 1987 -1988. He received 10085 quintals of fuel wood against challans, Ex.PJ/1 to Ex. PJ/8. Out of that, 6980.19 quintals fuel wood was sold for a sum of Rs. 6,36,703.75/ - to some Government departments at market rate and also to right holders at subsidized rate. However, out the sale proceeds, a sum of Rs. 6,32,940/ - only had been deposited and the difference of Rs. 3754/ - had not been accounted for, which meant, that the said amount of money had been mis -appropriated. Respondent was alleged to have fabricated false documents to claim that there was loss of wood, on account of moisture to the extent of 30%, which according to him, was the permissible limit.

(3.) EX . PJ/1 to Ex. PJ/18 are the challans, against which, timber was supplied to the fuel depot at Killar during the year 1987 -1988. None for these challans is signed by the Respondent as recipient of the wood. Instead the wood, as per signature appearing on these challans, had been received by Sham Lal. Also, there is no evidence on record indicating that wood or any part of it, was sold by the Respondent. Not only this, there is no posting order on record to show that Respondent had been working in the fuel depot at Killar, during the relevant period. On the contrary, the posting order, upon which, the prosecution relies in support of its allegation, i.e., Ex. PW -3/1, office order dated 30.05.1987, shows that he had been posted as Incharge of store at Killar. Not only this, there is another office order Ex. PW1F/5, which is dated 30.05.1987. According to this order, it was Sham Lal, Deputy Ranger, who had been posted as Incharge, fuel wood depot at Killar. Orders Ex.PW -3/1 and Ex. PW1F/5 also prove that the store, of which the Respondent was posted as Incharge, is an establishment different from fuel depot, because while Respondent was posted as Incharge of store, Sham Lal, Deputy Range Officer, was posted as Incharge of fuel depot. That means, the store which was put in charge of the Respondent vide Ex. PW -3/1, is different from the fuel depot and if that is so, it cannot be said that the Respondent had anything to do with the activities of the fuel depot, leave alone the sale of fuel wood stacked therein.