STATE OF H.P. Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the trial Magistrate, whereby the respondent, who was sent up for trial for an offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted with the reasoning that there had been delay in lodging the FIR and also the audit was conducted by an Officer, who had not been specifically authorized to do so under the provision of Section 61 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968.

(2.) THE respondent was employed as Secretary-cum-Salesman with Laxmi Narayan Co-operative Consumer Store Ltd. Kinnu. He left the job in June 1985. As per entries in the cash book, written and maintained by the respondent and also kept by him in his own custody, he was supposed to be having cash of Rs.34,159.02 at the time when he left the job. However, he allegedly did not account for that money and misappropriated the same. Also, it was alleged that he had purchased goods worth Rs.12286.39 for being sold at the cooperative store, in question, against the cash credit limit granted in favour of the store by a Cooperative Bank, but did not account for the goods or the sale proceeds thereof.

(3.) THE trial Court has not appreciated the evidence, but has only referred to the substance of the statements made by the witnesses and passed the impugned order. It has not taken into account the documentary evidence led by the prosecution in the form of a large number of entries in the cash book and other record. It has also not held whether the entries in the record are in the hand of the respondent, as alleged by the prosecution, and if so, whether they prove the allegation of the prosecution or not. As noticed above, only two reasons have been recorded in support of the judgment of acquittal. Neither of the two reasons by itself is valid for passing the judgment of acquittal. Delay in lodging the FIR by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. It may be one of the several reasons for suspecting the correctness of the prosecution version, but only in those cases which are based on oral evidence and not where the prosecution's allegations are sought to be established by reference to the entries in the books of accounts or other record, allegedly maintained by the accused himself.