Golam Mortuza vs State Of West Bengal

The appellant was in-charge of the Malkhana, Sadar Court Compound, Police Station and District Burdwan. His duty was to disburse salary to Police Personnel. An amount of Rs.5,67,182/- was received by him for disbursing the salary to Police Personnel. On 2nd April, 2003, an undisbursed amount of Rs.2,26,410/- was kept in the Court Malkhana in a box under lock and key and the appellant was responsible for the amount. The amount was not found in the box on the next day. According to the prosecution, the appellant misappropriated the said amount which was not disbursed.

The appellant was charged under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Sessions Court convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years. The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant and reduced the sentence from ten years to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was granted bail by this Court on 30th November, 2009. As none appeared for the appellant when the matter was listed for hearing on 25th July, 2019, we requested Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned counsel to assist the Court by appearing for the appellant.

We have heard Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. Mr. Suresh took us through the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4 and 8 to submit that the guards at the premises had not deposed that the appellant was in any way responsible for the missing money. Their testimony is to the effect that the appellant had locked the box before leaving the premises and the money was found missing on the next day. He submits that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt as there is no evidence to conclusively prove that the appellant was responsible for the missing money. He also submitted that the ingredients of Section 405 IPC have not been made out as there is no material on record to show that the appellant has converted the amount for his personal use.

On a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae and perusing the evidence, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

We record our appreciation to Mr. P.B. Suresh for the assistance rendered by him.

The appeal stands disposed of.