SAIYID SADIK REZA Vs. BIBHUTI BHUSAN SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the manager of a waqf estate. He was defendant in the suit which was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1860-8-0 and compensation of Rs. 200 which the plaintiff claimed in the following circumstances: The plaintiff's father Rasaraj Sana was gomasta under the estate for a number of years and had given accounts of his collections and expenditure which were adjusted up to the end of the year 1330. He continued to be gomasta until his death which occurred on 3rd Agrahan 1334 B.S. corresponding to 19 November 1927. At that time the accounts for the years 1331-1333 and part of 1334 had not been submitted or adjusted. After his death the plaintiff, his son Bibhuti Bhusan Saha, carried on in his place and was formally appointed in Magh 1334 B.S

(2.) The plaintiff submitted his father's accounts of the years 1331-1333 on 27th September 1928. The accounts were received by the defendant's record-keeper and am Mukhtear Gopal Kristo Das, a copy being returned to the plaintiff with acknowledgments of receipts of each set of papers signed by Gopal Kristo Das. The balance due from the estate to the plaintiff's father at the end of 1333 was according to the plaintiff Rs. 1860-8-0 Thereafter, on 5 October 1929, the plain tiff submitted his account for 1334 receipt of which was again acknowledged in writing by Gopal Kristo and a copy returned to the plaintiff which is Ex. 7. At the close of this account, balance was struck and it was found that for the year 1334 there was a. net balance of Rs. 1786-3-3 due from the plaintiff to the estate.

(3.) The result of deducting this balance from the previous balance of Rs. 1860-8-0 due from the estate to the plaintiff's father was that Rs. 74-4-9 was the balance due to the plaintiff from the estate. The plaintiff retained in his hands the sum of Rs. 1786-3-3 which was the excess of receipts over expenditure during, the year 1334 only. The estate through its servant Saiyid Mohsan Reza instituted a criminal prosecution of the plaintiff under Section 408, I.P.C. alleging that he had misappropriated this entire sum of Rupees 1786-3-3.