PAUSU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule in revision has been obtained by Pausu Ram against his conviction under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code by the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Kulu, and his order of conviction has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Mandi. The prosecution case was, that Pausu Ram was appointed Tehsil Welfare Officer for Kulu district during the year 1964 -65. The then Punjab Government sponsored a scheme of subsidised purchase of land for the harijans and backward Ss. of the society under its Welfare Deptt. According to the scheme, part of the price for land was to be paid as a subsidy by the Government. The balance of price was to be paid by the Land Mortgage Bank and they were to extend it as a loan repayable on easy installments. The particular individual to whom this facility was to be granted had to deposit either Rs. 200/ - or Rs. 205/ - as share money with the Land Mortgage Bank. Upon such deposit only, the Bank was to advance payment. In that connection the Tehsil Welfare Officers were required to go to villages and collect amounts from deserving persons. Accordingly this work, was entrusted to Pausu Ram who was Tehsil Welfare Officer and he collected various amounts of Rs. 200/ -or Rs. 205/ - from several persons including Sangatu, Man Dass, Mohan Lal, Gurdwaru, Tulsu, Maghu, Karmu, Chanduand Nupu. Instead of depositing the amount with the Land Mortgage Bank, Pausu Ram kept it for himself and also misappropriated the same. These persons naturally made a complaint to the District Social Welfare Officer. After retention of the money with him for about two years Pausu Ram returned the amounts to first five of the above named persons. As regards the remaining four he did not return any amount, rather gave them pronotes in lieu of that money. All this gave rise to the prosecution of Pausu Ram under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution produced all the nine persons named above besides Shri Avtar Singh Sandhu (P.W. 13). Director, Social Welfare.

(3.) The accused produced Bhagwant Singh (D.W.I) scribe of the receipt written by Maghu, and Tek Ram (DW. 2) Lamberdar who is a marginal witness of the said receipt. It was submitted by the accused that the amount was actually returned to Maghu and was no longer due from him.