LAWS(PAT)-1997-8-36

BISHWANANTH VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On August 01, 1997
BISHWANATH VERMA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises, was appointed on 22-12-1944 as Extra Departmental Agent (Sub-Post Master) in the branch Post Office at Rampur Bindalal by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Gandak Division (Ext.-2). It appears that two Money Orders - one bearing No. 3525 dated 13-6-1959 for Rs. 200/- payable to one Kuber Pandit of the same village and another bearing No. 1339 dated 11-6-1959 for Rs. 100/- payable to Mannu Sah. The appellant received the same in the capacity of Sub-Post Master. The first one was received by the appellant on 16-6-1959 and the second one on 17-6-1959. These were shown as paid on 19- 6-1959.

(2.) Kuber Pandit had sent a complaint to the Inspector of post Offices, Chapra complaining that he had not received the Money-Order which had been sent to him. The Postal Inspector made enquiries and he made a written report to the police station wherefrom a case was registered under Sections 409, 467/109 and also 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was ultimately tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Saran. The appellant was found guilty but on appeal his conviction and sentence was set aside by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Chapra by judgment dated 15th January, 1965. The appellate Court honourably acquitted the appellant by giving categoric finding that the appellant had not committed criminal breach of trust inasmuch as he had paid the money to the persons in whose name Money Orders were addressed. The appellant's defence was that there were two persons in the name of Kuber Pandit - one was real Kuber Pandit and the other was Kuber Pandit @ Raghunath to whom by mistake payment was made and when the mistake was detected, Kuber Pandit @ Raghunath returned the amount on 14-7-1959. So far other Money Order payable to Mannu Sah is concerned, the payment had been made to him.

(3.) During the pendency of the criminal proceeding against the appellant, his services was terminated by Ext.- 2/b extracted below: