BALDEO PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500. He was Head Clerk and Accountant in the Surajpur Wards Estate No. 2. In that capacity he drew from the Treasury, month by month, a number of small items of money on account of the provident fund of employees. It was his duty regularly to deposit these amounts in a post office savings bank account maintained in respect of the provident fund moneys. In his books he showed these amounts as regularly paid in from time to time; but in fact they were not so paid in. The items aggregating Rs. 110-2-0 which are the subject of the charge, were drawn by him during the year 1930, but were deposited into the savings bank on 13 October 1931.

(2.) The defence of accused was that he retained the money not for his personal use but to utilize in meeting necessary expenses of the estate for which there was not cash in hand in the estate; that payments on behalf of the estate had been made by him in advance of the bills drawn for such payments; that he drew a bill on 12 October 1931, for Rs. 131-10-3, and made the deposit next day out of monies drawn by this bill, by which he reimbursed himself for payments already made. The payees had received their money in advance.

(3.) This defence was rejected by both the Courts below. The petitioner complained that he had called for documents from the Collector or the estate which were withheld claiming privilege under the Evidence Act, Section 124, and contended that he had been prejudiced thereby, because such documents would have substantiated his defence. In particular it was urged that the petitioner's explanation called for at the beginning of the enquiry, which led to the proceedings, gave the same story as was offered at the trial, and the other documents would have proved it to be true. We have examined the cheque for Rs. 131-10-3 and compared it with the payees receipts by which the items comprised in it were supported, and have found that the dates of these receipts conclusively prove this explanation to be false. The bulk of the money was not disbursed until after the bill was drawn.