EMPEROR Vs. KESHAVRAO BHILAJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was convicted under Secs.408, 467 and 477A of the Indian Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced for each offence to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts alleged against him are that, he, being a supervisor of a society called the Shirpur Supervising Union, which, we understand, is connected with the co-operative movement, on April 11,1934, misappropriated and converted to his own use Rs. 2, which represented the pay of a woman, who swept and cleaned his office, and that he thereby committed an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code; and further that at the same time and date he forged or caused to be affixed to the receipt of the said sweeper woman a thumb impression, which is not of that person and thereby committed a forgery punishable under Section 467, Indian Penal Code, and finally that he defrauded the Union by making a false debit entry to the effect that Laxmibai had been paid Rs. 2 when no such payment had been made and thereby committed an offence under Section 477-A, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) On the evidence, we think that the case for the prosecution has been made out. Laxmibai has been called and has sworn that she had not received any payment for doing the work in question for about eighteen months. An expert from the Thumb Impression Bureau had also been called, and he proved, as found by the learned Sessions Judge, that; the thumb impression purporting to be that of Laxmibai against the debit entry of Rs. 2, on April 11, 1932, is not hers, but that of a young nephew of the accused, whose thumb impression has been taken and identified as similar in twelve different points to the one on the register in question. The accused's explanation of this thumb impression is that it was caused to be affixed by his nephew at the instance of a person called Shivram. Shivram is a witness in the case, and has been cross-examined, and he denied making the boy put this thumb impression on the register. There is thus no doubt that the entry of Rs. 2 purporting to have been paid to Laxmibai is a false one. It is in the appellant's hand-writing and the certificate that the thumb impression below it is that of Laxmibai is also admittedly in the accused's hand-writing. The appellant also made a statement when the auditor Mr. Bhir first came to examine his accounts. In this statement which amounts to confession the accused said: Two rupees have been debited every month from the Union for the maid servant Laxmibai widow of Maharu for cleaning and applying cow-dung to the office. She has actually been paid at this rate for some days. Afterwards as she had more work she ceased to come for cleaning and applying cow-dung. While in employment we used to give her one Lugade at the time of Divali. She was not paid for her work from January 1932 to May. Her pay for two to four months even before January 1932 has not yet been paid. Therein Rs. 2 have been debited to Laxmibai's name on each of the four dates viz. 1.2.1932 and so on, the total being Rs. 8 and receipts have been obtained in their respect. In the column of receipts I myself have written the words Laxmibai bhratar Maharu's thumb mark . These four thumb marks are not of that woman but of one of my brother's two sons. In order that there should be no audit objection regarding thumb impressions I took the thumb marks of the abovementioned boy.