MOTILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid four appeals are being decided by this one judgment in view of the fact that a common point has emerged in all of them on which the appeals are decided, but for the embezzlement of different amounts in different years spread over because of legal requirement. They all arise out of one common audit report which was made basis for the prosecution and which is only evidence to substantiate the prosecution case. In this view of the matter though the facts of only one of the appeal being appeal No. 67/80 are reproduced here yet all the appeals are being disposed of. The accused-appellant stands convicted and sentenced in all the four cases as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_61_LAWS(RAJ)1_19801.html</FRM>

(2.) The Director, Community Development and Panchayat Deptt. Rajasthan Government, Jaipur wrote a letter dated 21.11.1971 to D.I.G.P., A.C.D., Jaipur that a special audit and inspection was carried out at Dairy and Poultry Department of Gram-Sewak Training Centre, Sawai Madhopur for a period w.e.f 1.4.68 to 31.8.71. The audit party in its report besides pointing out various irregularities and illegalities committed by the staff of Dairy and Poultry Department also pointed out that there was an embezzlement of about Rs. 10,000.00 which requires to be investigated. On receipt of this information a case for offence under S.409 Penal Code and S. 5 (1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation the investigating officer recorded the statements of the members of the audit party and various other officials of the Dairy and Poultry Department. They checked the accounts pertaining to production and sale of milk and eggs and came to the conclusion that various amounts have been embezzled during the period from 1968 to 1971. The break up position of which has been mentioned in Annexures annexed to the audit report. It was found during investigation that amount had been received by accused-appellant. Moti Lal who was working as 'Kukkut Pradarshak'. It was found that he had embezzled a total sum of Rs. 8782.10 within a period from April, 1968 to Aug., 1971. In order to over-come the difficulty of S. 219 Crimial P.C. four charge-sheets were submitted spliting the amount for different periods. All these cases were tried by learned Special Judge for ACD Cases, Jaipur. Charges were framed for offence under S. 409 Penal Code and S. 5(1)(c) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of each of the case. The accused denied the prosecution story. He came with a positive case that a biased audit had taken place and the audit party has saved other officers and fastened false responsibility on him without taking into account the accounts pertaining to sale of eggs on issuance of coupons. His case is that he was not selling the eggs in cash but he was giving the eggs to the persons on the basis of coupons which were issued to various persons by the cashier who used to receive the amount. Several people who used to give coupons to him for taking eggs have gone scot free making a false plea of sale in cash. The learned trial court held the accused guilty of the offence of embezzlement and convicted the accused in each of the case for offence under S. 409 Penal Code and S. 5(1) (c) read with S. 5(2) of the P. C. Act. He sentenced the accused as stated above. The learned trial court has based his entire findings on the basis of the annexures filed along with audit report. He also took into consideration the fact of depositing the amount by the accused subsequent to audit in the department, as one of the circumstance against him. He however, did not taken a notice of the defence of the accused about issuance of coupons and brushed aside the defence. He contended by mentioning that entries cannot be regarded as sufficient to show that eggs were sold against coupon and the coupons used to be destroyed because there is no mention about the destruction of coupons in the aforesaid entries. According to him issuance of coupons had no relevancy in the case.