STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 2.1.2004 delivered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Recong Peo, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts of the case are that according to the prosecution, the respondent was working as a Branch Post Master, Kamru during the year 1990- 91. The case of the prosecution is that he used to receive various amounts from the depositors for depositing the same in their accounts. Though he would make the entries in the pass book but he would not deposit the amounts in the Government Account and therefore, he misappropriated the amount. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused misappropriated the following amounts of the depositors:- Name of the depositor Date Amount Smt. Jawala Bhagati 27.3.1991 Rs.200.00 Sh. Devi Sagar 15.10.91 Rs.350/- Sh. Palzer 27.3.1991 Rs.200/- Sh. Padam Sukh 27.3.91 Rs.1419/-

(3.) COMING to the evidence of Padam Sukh, who was examined as PW-1, he has admitted that he has received the entire amount through the Post Office, which would clearly indicate that the money was not misappropriated and was deposited in the Government Account. As far as PW-10 Devi Sagar is concerned, though according to the prosecution an amount of Rs.350/- was handed over by him on 15.10.1991 to Mohan Lal to be deposited in his account but when he appeared as PW-10 he gave a totally different version. According to him some Mohan Lal or Sohan Lal was the Post Master and he had handed over Rs.300/- for deposit in the Post master. This amount is totally different from the case made out by the prosecution. He further goes on to state that he does not remember what was the exact amount which he deposited. According to him he came to know that the amount had been entered in the pass book but it had not been deposited in the Government Account. Shockingly, even though the pass book as a whole was exhibited but no effort was made by the prosecution to get the specific entry proved through this witness especially when he himself is not clear what was the exact amount deposited by him.