HEM CHANDRA HALDAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Hem Chandra Haldar was, on the complaint of Mr. H. Nicholas, Presidency Postmaster Calcutta, charged with the commission of an offense under Section 409, I. P. C, and the offence committed was specified in the manner following: That he, on or about 25th July 1933, being a Government servant employed in the General Post Office, as a postman, and in such capacity entrusted with or having dominion over property, to wit, rupees 1,165-8- 0 the amount collected by him from different firms in Calcutta committed criminal breach of trust as a public servant. Upon the materials placed before the Court on behalf of the prosecution, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta by whom the appellant was tried, convicted him of the offence charged, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years, by judgment passed on 18 September 1933.

(2.) The entrustment of the money, the amount of Rs. 1,165-8-0 was not in question; and what had to be decided in the case was whether there was a criminal misappropriation and breach of trust. The appellant pleaded innocence, and denied misappropriation. The definite case stated by him in his written statement filed in Court, was that on the date of occurrence near the Surveyor General's Office, Calcutta, he was hailed by men in a motor car to read an address on an envelope; as he advanced to do so, he was held down in the motor car by his neck and a rope was fastened round it ; he became senseless and he did not remember anything further until his recovery at the hospital. The written statement was fild in Court on 14 September 1933, and it was in consonance with the statement of the appellant made to the police, immediately after the occurrence at the hospital, on 25 July 1933. This statement, to which detailed reference has been made by the Magistrate in his judgment, was taken by Inspector Hamid, after he went to the hospital at 5-10 p.m. on the day of occurrence.

(3.) The appellant having taken a substantive defence to the charge of misappropriation, it was in the circumstances of the present case, necessary to make out that defence. The prosecution was required to establish the guilt of the appellant by disproving the defence version of the case, by the production of evidence. The statement of the appellant recorded by a responsible police officer, immediately after the occurrence must be given its proper weight, and in that connection as observed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, the medical evidence in the case was obviously of the utmost importance. The House Surgeon of the hospital was examined as the first witness on the side of the prosecution. According to the doctor, the accused was under police guard on admission to the hospital on 25 July. A small abrasion was found on the back of his neck on 27 July in the morning; this was shown to Col. Denham White, the superior medical officer at the hospital. A note was kept of that scar ; this note however was not produced. The pulse of the accused when he was examined by the doctor was 100. In addition to, the doctor's evidence, there is the evidence of the witness Chandan Singh, examined on the side of the prosecution, in which details were given of the appellant's movements on the day of occurrence.