STATE OF H.P. Vs. GOVIND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT had been working as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master in Sub Post Office Tramat, Tehsil Jogindernagar in Mandi District during the year 1986. There were allegations against him that he had been disbursing the amount of money orders to the payees after utilizing those amounts of money for quite some time. Also there were allegations against him that in some cases, thumb impressions/signatures of the payees had been forged and money payable on account of money orders had not been disbursed and instead mis-appropriated. Besides, there were allegations that the money deposited with the respondent by holders of recurring deposit accounts had not been accounted for in the Books of Accounts maintained at the sub post office, though entries were made in the Pass Books. On receipt of this complaint, a surprise checking of the records was conducted on 26.7.1986 and having found some substance in the allegations, the superior authorities placed the respondent under suspension on 28.7.1986. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Thereafter, detailed inquiry was conducted and it was found that in eleven cases, amounts of money orders had either not been disbursed to the payees or the same had been disbursed much after the dates of disbursement recorded in the books maintained in the said post office. It was also noticed that one Gopal Singh had opened a recurring deposit account in the name of his minor son Gunjan and the said Gopal Singh deposited Rs. 200/- on 25.7.1986. An entry was made in the pass book Exhibit P6 but corresponding entries were not made in the books maintained in the said post office. Similarly, two amounts of Rs. 20/- each had been deposited by Rita Devi and Smiro Devi on 26.7.1986. Entries were made in their Pass Books Ext. P16 and P18, respectively, but no corresponding entries were made in the Books maintained in the sub post office. Challan was filed against the respondent. He was charged with the offences punishable, under Section 409, 468 and 420 Indian Penal Code and on his pleading not guilty, was put on trial.

(2.) PROSECUTION examined sixteen witnesses to bring the charge home to the respondent. Respondent denied the allegations of forgery, embezzlement and cheating and alleged that he had been falsely implicated.

(3.) NEXT witness who supported the prosecution version is Pano Devi (PW16). She stated that her husband works at Delhi and she received a letter from him about his having remitted to her Rs. 500/- and that when she did not receive the money, she went to the respondent and made enquiries but was told by the respondent that the money had not been received and that she received the money two months later. Exhibit P13 is the money order form pertaining to the remittance of money to this witness by her husband. Though she denies that the form bears her signature, the prosecution did not get the signature on this form compared with the standard signature of the witness to prove the allegation that the same is a forged one. Now when she states that she had received the money two months later, her bald testimony that her purported signature on Exhibit P13 is a forged one cannot be believed. The respondent must have obtained her signatures at the time of making the payment. Other witnesses pertaining to the allegation of non-payment or late payment of amounts of money orders did not support the prosecution version.