STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KALU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KALU Ram, respondent, has been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bundi by his judgment dated May 9, 1980, under sec. 409, IPC and the State of Rajasthan has, by leave, filed this appeal against his acquittal.

(2.) KALU Ram was employed as an LDC-cum-cashier in the office of the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bundi during the relevant time. As on October 11,1974, there was a cash balance of Rs. 6,021. 06 with KALU Ram as per the entry Ex. P/9 in the cash book. KALU Ram had joined the' office of the Dy. CMHO (Health), Bundi in the fore-noon of January 14, 1974 and he remained on this duty upto November 5, 1974 He was placed under suspension by an order of the CMHO dated November 6, 1974. Dr. S. K. Soloman (PW/20) was Deputy CMHO, Bundi from February 13,1974 to April 4,1974. Dr. RS. Purohit held this post from April 1974 to September 6, 1974. Again, Dr. S. K. Soloman again occupied this post from September 7, 1974 to October 11, 1974. Dr. R. P. Bhatnaga,r (PVV/21) joined the post of Dy. CMHO, Bundi on October 11, 1974 and continued on the post till October 1975 when Dr. R. P. Bhatnagar had joined, the respondent had gone to Jaipur in connection with the budget. He returned from Jaipur on October 27, 1974. Dr R. P. Bhatnagar asked him to complete the charge papers Cash book was demanded from him, which was produced on October 30, 1974. But it contained entries only upto October 11 , 1974 showing cash balance of Rs. 6,021 06. Dr. R. P. Bhatnagar wanted to check the cash physically, whereupon the respondent left the Office. Dr. R. P. Bhatnagar made a report Ex. P/9a in this respect to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bundi, wherein he mentioned that he was surprised to note that there was not a single entry in the cash book on either side of it, after October 11, 1974. He requested the Chief Medical & Health Officer to arrange for the handing over the charge after showing him physically the cash balance or paid vouchers. Thereafter, on October 31, 1974, the Chief Medical & Health Officer sealed the almirah used by the. respondent and, on November 1, 1974, the almirah was opened in the presence of Dr. S. K. Soloman. Dr. K. Lal, Shri S. D. Deval, SDM, Bundi, & Shri P. C. Jain Accountant, CMHO, Bundi. No cash was found in the almirah. Thereafter the statment of the respondent was recorded on November 1, 1974 and that statement is Ex. P/7. In that statement, the respondent made a confession that he did not have any cash balance with him. He had given some amount on loan and the rest has been used by him in domestic purposes. He assured that he would deposit the amount within four-five days. It appears from the receipt dated February 17, 1975, that the respondent deposited the amount of Rs. 5,780. 58 on that date to make good the embezzled amount. It may be mentioned that in the meantime, Nand Lal Sharma (PW/19), who was Assistant Accounts Officer, Internal Check Party, made an inspection and he gave his report Ex P/3. In this inspection report, Shri Nand Lal Sharma found that a total amount of Rs. 5,786. 58 had been embezzled by the respondent. He also pointed out certain financial irregularities in the maintenance of cash book and custody of the cash. On November 5, 1974, the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bundi made a First Information Report (Ex P/6) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Bundi. On this report, a case under Sec. 409, IPC was registered against the respondent. After necessary investgation, the police filed a charge-sheet. The Judicial Magistrate charged the respondent under Sec. 409, IPC and after trial acquitted the respondent of the said charge.

(3.) BEFORE part with this judgment, I may refer to the decision in Madan Lal Vs. State of Punjab (4 ). In that case, there was a charge against the accused under Secs. 120b, 409 and 477-A of the Penal Code. It has been found that certain money had admittedly been received by the appellant. The High Court had held that the burden of proving was upon the appellant to show that what he had done with them. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court said that their was no question of the appellant raising any reasonable doubt in view of his admission that he received the said money; the evidence of the District Inspector of schools and the appellant's confession that he had in fact misappropriated Rs. 2,500/- and was prepared to deposit that amount. The conviction of the appellant in that case under Sec. 409, IPC was upheld.