SURAJ KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Srimati Suraj Kumari is the wife of Sri A. P. Sinha who was employed as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in the Damodar Valley Corporation He was charged with defalcation of Government fund of a large amount exceeding Rs. 2,30,062/5/- and a prosecution was started against him. He was believed to have acquired properties also out of the amount of defalcation and an application was filed under Section 3 of the Criminal Amendment Ordinance No XXXVIII of 1944 for attachment of plots Nos. 1148 and 1149 of khata No. 52 khewat No. 2/2 on the Ratu Road of Ranchi town together with a pucca building standing thereon being Municipal Holding No 2944 Ward No. 1B within the Ranchi Municipality, and a pucca building standing on plot No. 8 being Municipal Holding No. 373 of Ward No. 8 within the Monghyr Municipality. As provided under Section 3 of the Ordinance the State of Bihar was to obtain an order oi attachment by the District Judge where Damodar Valley Corporation was situated and where A. P. Sinha was employed. In order to make the attached property available for realisation of the amount, if any procured by the accused person by committing one of the scheduled offences, the procedure provided for investigation under Section 5 of the Ordinance was followed by the District Judge, Hazaribagh and after having recorded the evidence, both oral and documentary led by the parties, he came to the conclusion that the appellant, the wife of A. P. Sinha who objected to the attachment of the property on the ground that it was her own personal property and her husband had no concern with it was unfounded The learned District Judge held that property was acquired by A. P Sinha and the claim of the appellant that it was her personal property was not substantiated. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge.

(2.) Mr. J. C. Sinha appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a number of questions in support of his contention. He has urged in the first place that the Court below was in error in holding that this house was built by A. P. Sinha out of the money which he defalcated from the fund of the Damodar Valley Corporation. His argument is that although A. P. Sinha joined the service of the Damodar Valley Corporation in the year 1950, the land was acquired much earlier. Plot No. 1149 was purchased from Juthari Munda under exhibit 1/a on the 15th June, 1949 in the name of this lady and plot No. 1148 was purchased from Orjun-oraon under Exhibit 1 on the 22nd July 1950. Plot No. 1147 was acquired under Exhibit 1/b on the same date. The total considerations conveyed under plots nos. 1148 and 1149 was Rs. 3250. According to the appellant, she purchased this land out of her own money consisting partly of dowry obtained by her for her son's marriage and partly out of the money she received by selling her gold and silver ornaments. Bricks were laid for the constructions of this house in 1947 and after the house came to be completed, Grihpravesh at this Ratu house was held on the 14th May, 1952. The marriage of her eldest son took place on the 7th June 1951. The period for which charge was framed against her husband for defalcation of the amount was December 1952 to March 1953, Hence it was clear that this property could not have been acquired bv her husband out of any money which the criminal Court may have found him to have defalcated as an employee of the Damodar Valley Corporation. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention in this connection to certain documents which are Exhibits 5 and 5/a. Exhibit 5 was the application filed by the lady for purchase of materials for construction of the house dated the 10th December 1951 and another application is Ext. 5/a dated the 26th February, 1951. Exhibit D was an application by A. P. Sinha dated the 3rd February 1951 filed before the Sub-divisional Officer, Ranchi, applying for a gun license as a burglary was committed in his house by some desperate criminals. The document was filed to show that this house was already ready in February 1951.

(3.) Our attention has also been drawn by the learned Counsel to the evidence of opposite party witness No. 2, Jugal Kishore Singh. who was posted at Ranchi Kotwali Station from 1947 to 1952. He has stated as follows:--