Mahadeo Prasad vs The State

Dharam Veer, J.—This appeal, preferred u/s 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1992 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Dehradun, in C.B.I. Case No. 3/85 CBI v. Mahadev Prasad, whereby the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Anti-Corruption has convicted the appellant u/s 409 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and sentenced him to six months'' R.I. The accused/appellant was further convicted u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred as Act) and was sentenced to six months'' R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two month''s additional R.I. All the sentences were also directed to run concurrently.

I have heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Sri U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Advocate on behalf of the respondent/CBI. Perused the entire material available on record.

In brief, the prosecution case is that appellant- Mahadeo Prasad while posted and functioning as Postal Assistant, Sub Post Office, Gabhana, District Aligarh, during the year 1983 was entrusted with various amounts in his capacity as a public servant by respective depositors for being deposited in their saving Bank/Recurring deposits accounts as per details given below:

S. Name of the S.B. Account/ Date of Amount No. depositor R.D. No. deposit Rs.

Sri Kishan Lal 780679 19.7.83 2,100/-

Sri Rajendra 784016 28.11.83 190/- Kumar

Sri Yaswand Singh 101001

(i) 16.4.83 200/- (ii) 11.5.83 200/- (iii) 24.6.83 200/- (iv) 29.8.83 200/- (v) 28.9.83 200/- (vi) 29.10.83 200/- (vii) 30.10.83 200/- (viii) 22.12.83 200/-

Sri Suresh Chand 101028 Sarswal (i) 3.11.83 100/- (ii) 7.12.83 100/-

Sri Suresh Chand 101029 Sarswal (i) 11.6.83 100/- (ii) 20.2.83 100/- (iii) 6.8.83 100/-

Km. Asha Rani 100771 (Minor) D/o Sri Jagdish Chandra Sharma

(i) 29.8.83 50/- (ii) 16.9.83 50/- (iii) 8.11.83 100.50

Sri Chandra Pal 100864 Goswami (i) 28.1.83 20/- (ii) 21.3.83 20/- (iii) 29.4.83 20/- (iv) 14.5.83 20/- (v) 27.5.83 20/- (vi) 27.7.83 20/- (vii) 14.8.83 20/- (viii) 26.9.83 20/- (ix) 28.11.83 20/-

Sri Shankar Pal 100978 Singh (i) 1.3.83 30/- (ii) 5.7.83 30/- (iii) 6.8.83 30/- (iv) 12.9.83 30/- (v) 3.10.83 30/- (vi) 3.11.83 30/-

Sri Gyan Chand 100865 30.3.83 60.30

Total 5010.80

The aforesaid amounts of Rs. 5010/-80 so received by the appellant-Mahadeo Prasad, have not been accounted for in the postal records and have been dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated by him. With the above-said averments, the FIR was lodged by Sri Tilak Kak, Supdt. of Police, CBI/SPE/Dehradun on 21.1.1985 at 11:30 hours and the case was registered against the appellant-Mahadeo Prasad u/s 409 IPC & u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) of the Act, that FIR is Ex.Ka-124. Initially the investigation of the case was entrusted to R.K. Bhakta, Inspector, CBI/SPE/Dehradun but later on it was transferred to PW13 Raman Tyagi. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses and took necessary documents into possession and also prepared their seizure memo. Sri B.S. Sharma, Sr. Supdt. of Post Office, Aligarh granted sanction for prosecution of the appellant vide order dated 11.7.1985, that sanction order is Ex.Ka-25. During the course of the investigation, the signatures and handwritings of the appellant were sent for testing at Central Forensic Institutes, Govt. of India, Calcutta. Sri J.K. Semwal, Asstt. Govt. Examiner of questioned documents submitted his opinion i.e. Ext.Ka-122 and the covering letter along with that opinion is Ext.Ka-121. After completing the investigation, the I.O. came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 4730.80 was fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated by the accused/appellant. Therefore, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused/appellant u/s 409 IPC and u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) of the Act in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Dehradun. That charge sheet is Ex.Ka-140.

Learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun framed the charge u/s 409 IPC and u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) of the Act against the accused/appellant. The charge was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Kishan Lal; PW2 Jaswant Singh; PW3 Chandra Pal Goswami; PW4 Jagdish Chandra Sharma; PW5 Bhupal Singh Sharma; PW6 Laxmi Narayan Sharma; PW7 Roshan Lal; PW8 Ved Ram; PW9 Ghanshyam Saraswat; PW10 V.K. Gupta; PW11 S.S. Yadav; PW12 J.K. Semwal; PW13 Raman Tyagi; PW14 Gyan Chandra; PW15 Shankar Pal Singh and PW16 Suresh Chandra.

Thereafter the statements of the accused/appellant were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to him in question form, who denied the allegations made against him. In defence, Bishambhar Singh was examined as DW1.

After appreciating the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 23.12.1992 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as stated above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Kishan Lal, who has proved the entry Ext.Ka-1 of Rs. 2,100/- in the passbook. He stated that he had given Rs. 2,100/- to the accused/appellant for depositing the same in his account and the accused/appellant had also made entry of the said amount in the passbook. Again when he went in the post office to deposit the amount, he came to know that the amount of Rs. 2,100/- deposited by him earlier was not deposited in his account.

PW2 Jaswant Singh stated that he got opened a Recurring Deposit A/c in the post office for depositing Rs. 200/- per month and the account number was 101001. On 16.4.1983, he gave Rs. 200/- to the accused/appellant and the accused/appellant also made entry in the passbook dated 16.4.1983 Ext.Ka-2. Likewise, on 11.5.1983, 24.6.1983, 29.8.1983, 28.9.1983, 29.10.1983, 30.11.1983 and in December 1983, he gave Rs. 200/- per month to the accused/appellant and entry in that regard were also made in the pass book, which are Ext.Ka-3, Ka-4, Ka-5, Ka-6, Ka7, Ka-8 and Ka-9, respectively. On 25.1.984, when he went in the post office to deposit the amount, he came to know that fraud was committed upon him and the amount shown to be deposited in his passbook was actually not deposited in his account.

PW3 Chandra Pal Goswami stated that he was having an R.D. A/c in Gabhana Post Office of Rs. 20/- per month for five years and he used to deposit Rs. 20/- per month. On 28.1.83, 23.2.83, 31.3.83, 29.4.83, 19.5.83, 29.6.83, 26.7.83, 24.8.83, 26.9.83 and 28.11.83 he gave Rs. 20/- on respective dates to the accused/appellant. The accused/appellant also made entry of the same in the passbook and after making entries, he returned the passbook to him. The entry in the passbook was marked as Ext.Ka-10 to Ka-19, respectively. Later on he came to know that his amount has been forged.

PW4 Jagdish Chandra Sharma stated that he had opened an R.D. A/c with Account No. 100771 in the name of his daughter Asha Rani at Gabhana Post Office. On 27.8.83 he gave Rs. 50/- to the accused/appellant; entry in this regard was also made in the passbook by the accused/appellant i.e. Ext.Ka-20. Likewise on 16.9.83 an amount of Rs. 50/- and on 8.11.83 an amount of Rs. 100.50 he gave to the accused/appellant for depositing the same in the account of his daughter. Both the entries were made by the accused/appellant in the passbook on both the dates in which the accused/appellant also made his signatures. He has also proved the counterfoil of Pay-in slip of depositing Rs. 100.50 on 8.11.83 which also bears the signatures of the accused/appellant i.e. Ext.Ka-24.

PW5 Bhupal Singh Sharma stated that since January 1985 till December 1985 he was posted as Senior Superintendent of Post Office in Aligarh. He further stated that for the appointment and removal of Postal Assistant, the authority vests with Senior Suptd. of Post Office. On 11.7.1985, he accorded the permission to launch prosecution against the accused/appellant. Before granting sanction, he examined all relevant documents and discussed the case with the CBI officials. After being satisfied that the misappropriation of money, as mentioned in the Sanction order, was committed by the accused/appellant, he accorded sanction for prosecuting the accused/appellant, that sanction order is Ext.Ka-25.

PW6 Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Postmaster, Head Post Office has stated that he is well-known with the procedure of the saving bank and the Recurring deposit. The procedure is that the depositor along with the passbook submits the Pay-in slip on which the counter clerk after receiving the money makes entry in the saving bank ledger as well as in the passbook. After affixing the seal of the post office on the passbook, the same passbook, ledger and pay- in slip is submitted before the Postmaster for checking. Thereafter Postmaster makes his signatures on the passbook and ledger and also makes entry of deposit in his log book. He further stated that in the evening counter clerk makes entire statement of transaction into the list of transaction and produces the same before the Postmaster. Postmaster checks the same from log book. Likewise is the procedure of the R.D. The only difference is that the Postmaster does not make entry of deposit in his log book instead the counter clerk will make its entry in the RD Journal. He further stated that on the order of Superintendent he conducted enquiry about the said misappropriation. After completing the enquiry, he found that the accused/appellant Mahadeo Prasad has taken money from the depositors to deposit the same in their accounts but neither the accused/appellant made entries in the record of the post office nor he deposited the same in the post office.

PW7 Roshan Lal stated that in 1983 he was posted as Sub Postmaster at Gabhana Post Office and the accused/appellant was also posted in the same post office as Postal Assistant. The accused/appellant used to make entry in the passbook after taking money from the account holders of saving bank account. After that he used to affix the stamp of post office in the passbook. After making the entry in the saving bank and ledger, he used to put up the passbook, Pay-in slip and ledger before him. He used to check the same and thereafter used to sign on that. He also used to make entry in the log book according to the Pay-in slip. It was the duty of the accused/appellant to make list of transaction on the basis of log book. Same is the procedure with regard to Recurring Account. He further stated that the entry dated 19.7.83 of Rs. 2,100/- in the passbook of saving bank A/c No. 780679 was written by the accused/appellant i.e. Ext.Ka-1 but neither the accused/appellant made entry of the same amount in the log book i.e. Ext.Ka-26 nor he deposited the same in the post office. He has also proved the list of transaction dated 19.7.83 which is marked as Ext.Ka27. Likewise, in RD A/c No. 101001 dated 16.4.83, 11.5.83, 24.6.83, 29.8.83, 28.9.83, 29.10.83, 30.11.83 and 22.12.83, entries of Rs. 200/- were made by the accused/appellant in the passbook on the aforesaid dates which are marked as Ext.Ka-2 to Ka-9, respectively but the same amount was not shown in the R.D. General and in the list of transaction by the accused/appellant. He has proved the list of transactions of the aforesaid dates which are Ext.Ka-28 to Ka-34, respectively and the R.D. General which are Ext.Ka35 to Ka-42, respectively. He has also proved the signatures of the accused/appellant on the entries dated 3.11.83 and 7.12.83 in RD A/c Nos. 101028 and 101029, which are marked as Ext.Ka-43 and Ka-44. He further stated that the entry in R.D. General Paper No. 35A/2 and list of transaction dated 3.11.83 were also prepared by the accused/appellant which are Ext.Ka-45 and Ka-47, respectively. He has also proved entry dated 7.12.83 i.e. Ext.Ka-46. Similarly, in the account of Suresh Chand, the entry in the passbook dated 11.6.83, 20.7.83 and 6.8.83 for depositing the amount of Rs. 100/-on respective dates was made by the accused/appellant, which are Ext.Ka-48 to Ka-50, respectively and the entry in the R.D. General on the aforesaid dates were also made by the accused/appellant which are Ext.Ka-51 to 53 respectively but the same amount was not deposited by the accused/appellant in the account. He has also proved the list of transactions of the aforesaid dates which are marked as Ext.Ka-54 to 56, respectively. Similarly, in RD A/c No. 100771, the accused/appellant made entries of Rs. 50/- each on 27.8.83 and 16.9.83 and Rs. 100/- on 8.11.83 in the passbook which are Ext.Ka-20 to Ka-23, respectively but the same was also not deposited by the accused/appellant in the said account. Similar is the case with other account holders like Chandra Pal with A/c No. 100864, Shankar Pal with RD A/c No. 10090078, Gyan Chand with A/c No. 100865 who also gave money to the accused/appellant for depositing in the post office but the accused/appellant made entries of the amount in their passbooks but did not deposit the same in the Post Office.

PW8 Ved Ram stated that in the year 1983 he was posted as Ledger Clerk in Ledger Section at Head Post Office, Aligarh. He used to maintain ledger cards of SB/RD Accounts of the Gabhana Post Office. He further stated that he had maintained the ledger card of Krishna Lal with SB A/c No. 780679 i.e. Ext.Ka-103. After seeing the ledger card, he stated that there is no entry of depositing Rs. 2,100/- on 19.7.83. Likewise, he made entries in the ledger card of Rajendra Kumar with SB A/c No. 784016 and Gyan Chand with SB A/c No. 100865, which are Ext.Ka-104 and Ka-105, respectively but there were also no entry of Rs. 180/- dated 28.11.83 in the account of Rajendra Singh and Rs. 60.30 P dated 30.3.83 in the account of Gyan Chand. Similarly, he saw the ledger card of RD A/c No. 10100 and stated that there are no entries of depositing Rs. 200/- on 16.4.83, 11.5.83, 24.6.83, 29.8.83, 28.9.83, 29.10.83, 30.11.83 and 22.12.83. Likewise, there were no entry of Rs. 100/- in RD A/c No. 101028 on 3.11.83 and 7.12.83 and in RD A/c No. 101029 on 11.6.83, 20.7.83 and 6.8.83. He further stated that the entries in the ledger card of RD A/c No. 100864 were also made by him, which is Ext.Ka-110. After seeing the said ledger card, he stated that there is no entry of depositing Rs. 20/- each on 28.1.83, 21.3.83, 29.4.83, 19.5.83, 27.6.83, 26.7.83, 24.8.83, 28.11.83 and 26.9.83. Likewise, there were no entry of Rs. 30/- each on 1.3.83, 5.7.83 and 6.8.83 in the RD A/c No. 100978. He further stated that he did not made entries of the aforesaid amounts in the ledger cards because neither there was any such detail in the list of transaction sent by Gabhana Post Office nor he had received any vouchers in respect of depositing of aforesaid amounts.

PW9 Ghanshyam Saraswat stated in 1985 he was posted as Office Asstt., Sr. Suptd. Post Office, Aligarh. On 30.5.1985, Sri P.K. Pandey, S.I./CBI, Dehradun took certain documents into possession from him and the seizure memo thereof was prepared, which was signed by him and Sri P.K. Pandey. Carbon copy of that seizure memo is Ext.Ka-112. On 19.6.85 and 21.6.85, Sri Raman Tyagi, S.I./CBI, Dehradun also took certain documents into possession from him and its seizure memo was also prepared in which both of them signed, carbon copy of that seizure memo is Ext.Ka114.

PW10 V.K. Gupta stated that on 10.5.1985, Sri Raman Tyagi took certain documents into possession from him and the seizure memo thereof was prepared, carbon copy of which is Ext.Ka-115.

PW11 S.S. Yadav stated from 1980 to 1983, he was posted Inspector, Post Office, North Aligarh. He was assigned duty of inspection, etc. As the Gabhana Post office was under his work jurisdiction so he used to inspect it. At that time, the accused/appellant was posted as Postal Assistant at Gabhana Post Office. He is familiar with the handwriting and signatures of the accused/appellant. He has proved the entries made by the accused/appellant in the passbook which are Ext.Ka-1 to Ka-23, Ka-79 to Ka-81, Ka-86, Ka-87, Ka-96/1 and Ka-96/2. He has also proved the entries Ext.Ka-26, Ka-35 to Ka-42, Ka-45, Ka-46, Ka-51 to Ka-53, Ka-57 to Ka-59, Ka-63 to Ka-70, Ka-82, Ka-116 and Ka-88.

PW12 J.K. Semwal, Asstt. Government Examiner of Questioned Documents stated that the documents in the present case had been sent by the then S.P. CBI (SPE), Dehradun, Sri S.C. Sinha vide letter dated 26.8.1985 i.e. Ext.Ka-117 for expert opinion on the disputed documents. List of documents is marked as Ex.Ka-117. Thereafter, certain other documents were also sent vide letter dated 31.10.1985 for opinion. That letter is Ext.Ka-119 and the list of documents is Ext.Ka-120. Questioned documents were marked as Q1 to Q232 and the standard writings were marked as S1 to S12 and A1 to A55. He carefully and thoroughly examined the said documents. After that he came to conclusion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S12 and A1 to A55 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q232. The said opinion was sent to SP/CBI, Dehradun vide letter dated 20.12.1985. Forwarding letter is Ext.Ka-121 and the opinion paper is Ext.Ka-122. He further stated that he has given the detailed reasons for this opinion in his report i.e. Ext.Ka 123.

PW13 Raman Tyagi, Inspector CBI stated that in 1985 he was posted as Sub Inspector CBI, Dehradun. On the basis of FIR Ext.Ka-124, the case was registered as RC 1/85 dated 21.1.1985. Initially, the investigation of this case was entrusted to Sri R.K. Bhakta. Later on it was entrusted to R.K. Singh, Inspector and lastly the investigation of the case was entrusted to him vide order dated 14.3.1985, which is Ext.Ka-125/1. During the course of investigation, he took into possession certain documents and prepared their seizure memo, which are Ext.Ka-113 to Ka-115, Ext.Ka-126 and Ext.Ka-127. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The specimen signatures of accused/appellant i.e. from Ex.Ka-128 to Ka-139 were taken by him in presence of witness Raj Pal Singh on which the witness Raj Pal Singh and he also signed. Thereafter he sent questioned documents for expert report. Before receiving the expert report, he presented the entire evidences against the accused/appellant before the Senior Suptd. of Police and obtained the sanction for prosecuting the accused/appellant, that sanction order is Ext.Ka-25. On completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused/appellant i.e. Ext.Ka-140.

PW14 Gyan Chandra stated that he had a RD Account for depositing Rs. 30/- per month for five years in the Gabhana Post Office. He used to give the money for depositing the same in his account to the accused/appellant and the accused/appellant also used to made entry of the said amount in the passbook. On 30.3.1983, he gave Rs. 60.30 of two months to the accused/appellant and the accused/appellant also made entry of the aforesaid amount in the passbook. Later on when his RD became mature, he went to post office then he came to know that the amount of Rs. 60.30 deposited by him earlier was not deposited in his account.

PW15 Shankar Pal Singh stated that he had a RD account for depositing Rs. 30/- per month in the Post Office Gabhana. In March 1983, July 1983 and August 1983, he gave Rs. 30/- on each respective month for depositing the same to the accused/appellant, who after taking the money also made entry in the passbook, which are Ext.Ka-79, Ka80 and Ka-81, respectively. Later on he came to know that the aforesaid money was not deposited by the accused/appellant in the post office.

PW16 Suresh Chandra stated that he had two RD accounts with A/c No. 101028 and A/c No. 101029 at Gabhana Post Office. He used to deposit Rs. 100/- per month in each account. On 3.11.83 and 7.12.83, he gave Rs. 100/- for depositing the same in A/c No. 101028 and the accused/appellant also made entry of the same in his passbook, which is Ext.Ka-151 and Ka-152. Similarly, he gave Rs. 100/- to the accused/appellant for depositing the same in A/c No. 101029 on 11.6.83, 20.7.83 and 6.8.83 of which the accused/appellant also made entry in the passbook, which are Ext.Ka-153, Ka-154 and Ka-155, respectively. He further stated that the aforesaid money was not deposited by the accused/appellant in the Post Office.

Thereafter the statements of the accused/appellant were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to him in question form, who denied the allegations made against him. In defence, Bhishambhar Singh was examined as DW1.

Learned Counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant/accused. As per the evidence discussed above, it is proved that the appellant/accused on 19.7.1983 took Rs. 2,100/- from Kishan Lal (PW1); from Jashwant Singh (PW2) on 11.5.83 Rs. 200/-, on 16.4.83 Rs. 200/-, on 24.6.83 Rs. 200/-, on 29.8.83 Rs. 200/-, on 28.9.83 Rs. 200/-, on 29.10.83 Rs. 200/-, on 30.11.83 Rs. 200/- and on 22.12.83 Rs. 200/-; from Suresh Chand Saraswal (PW16) on 3.11.83 Rs. 100/-, on 7.12.83 Rs. 100/-, on 11.6.83 Rs. 100/-, on 20.7.83 Rs. 100/-on 6.8.83 Rs. 100/-; from Jagdish Chandra Sharma (PW4) on 27.8.83 Rs. 50/-, on 16.9.83 Rs. 50/-, on 8.11.83 Rs. 100.50 P; from Chandra Pal (PW3) on 28.1.83 Rs. 20, on 21.3.83 Rs. 20, on 29.4.83 Rs. 20, on 19.5.83 Rs. 20, on 27.6.83 Rs. 20, on 26.7.83 Rs. 20/-, on 24.8.83 Rs. 20, on 26.9.83 Rs. 20, 28.11.83 Rs. 20; from Shankar Pal (PW15) on 1.3.83 Rs. 30, on 5.7.83 Rs. 30, on 6.8.83 Rs. 30 and from Gyan Chand (PW14) on 30.3.83 Rs. 60.30, in total appellant/accused received Rs. 4730.80 while doing official work. The appellant/accused also made the entry of accounts in the passbook of the respective persons, however, the appellant/accused did not make any entry in the official documents of post office nor he made any entry in the list of transaction, log book, daily accounts. The appellant/accused intentionally and deliberately forged this amount of Rs. 4730.80. The prosecution in order to strengthen its case also got examined PW12 J.K. Semwal, Asstt. Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, who stated that the documents in the present case had been sent by the then S.P. CBI (SPE), Dehradun, Sri S.C. Sinha vide letter dated 26.8.1985 i.e. Ext.Ka-117 for expert opinion on the disputed documents. List of documents is marked as Ex.Ka-117. Thereafter, certain other documents were also sent vide letter dated 31.10.1985 for opinion. That letter is Ext.Ka-119 and the list of documents is Ext.Ka-120. Questioned documents were marked as Q1 to Q232 and the standard writings were marked as S1 to S12 and A1 to A55. He carefully and thoroughly examined the said documents. After that he came to conclusion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S12 and A1 to A55 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q232. The said opinion was sent to SP/CBI, Dehradun vide letter dated 20.12.1985. Forwarding letter is Ext.Ka-121 and the opinion paper is Ext.Ka-122. Therefore, the report given by the expert is found correct and genuine because the appellant/accused himself had given his specimen of signature and had also admitted in his statement that the same was also in his own handwriting. As such, from the entries made in the passbook itself goes to prove that the appellant/accused received money from the account holders. After being found the offence committed by the appellant/accused, as per the order of Superintendent, PW6 Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Postmaster, Head Post Office made an enquiry. On completion of enquiry, Laxmi Narayan Sharma reached to the conclusion that the appellant/accused Mahadeo Prasad taken the money from the depositors to deposit the same in their respective accounts but neither the appellant/accused made entries in the record of the post office nor he deposited the same in the post office accounts. PW7 Roshan Lal was also examined by the prosecution, who was posted as Sub Postmaster in the same post office where the appellant/accused was working as a Postal Assistant. In his examination-in-chief he described the entire procedure for receiving the money in the post office and thereafter the necessary entries required to be made. He further stated that the accused/appellant used to make entry in the passbook after taking money from the account holders of saving bank account and thereafter he used to affix the stamp of post office in the passbook. Subsequent to making entry in the saving bank and ledger, the appellant-accused used to put up the passbook, Pay-in slip and ledger before him. He used to check the same and thereafter used to sign on that. He also used to make entry in the log book according to the Pay-in slip. It was the duty of the accused/appellant to make list of transaction on the basis of log book. Same is the procedure with regard to Recurring Account. He further stated that the entry dated 19.7.83 of Rs. 2,100/- in the passbook of saving bank A/c No. 780679 was written by the accused/appellant i.e. Ext.Ka-1 but neither the accused/appellant made entry of the same amount in the log book i.e. Ext.Ka-26 nor he deposited the same in the post office. He has also proved the list of transaction dated 19.7.83 which is marked as Ext.Ka27. Likewise, in RD A/c No. 101001 dated 16.4.83, 11.5.83, 24.6.83, 29.8.83, 28.9.83, 29.10.83, 30.11.83 and 22.12.83, entries of Rs. 200/- were made by the accused/appellant in the passbook on the aforesaid dates which are marked as Ext.Ka-2 to Ka-9, respectively but the same amount was not shown in the R.D. General and in the list of transaction by the accused/appellant. He has proved the list of transactions of the aforesaid dates which are Ext.Ka-28 to Ka-34, respectively and the R.D. General which are Ext.Ka35 to Ka-42, respectively. He has also proved the signatures of the accused/appellant on the entries dated 3.11.83 and 7.12.83 in RD A/c Nos. 101028 and 101029, which are marked as Ext.Ka-43 and Ka-44. He further stated that the entry in R.D. General Paper No. 35A/2 and list of transaction dated 3.11.83 were also prepared by the accused/appellant which are Ext.Ka-45 and Ka-47, respectively. He has also proved entry dated 7.12.83 i.e. Ext.Ka-46. Similarly, in the account of Suresh Chand, the entry in the passbook dated 11.6.83, 20.7.83 and 6.8.83 for depositing the amount of Rs. 100/-on respective dates was made by the accused/appellant, which are Ext.Ka-48 to Ka-50, respectively and the entry in the R.D. General on the aforesaid dates were also made by the accused/appellant which are Ext.Ka-51 to 53 respectively but the same amount was not deposited by the accused/ appellant in the account. He has also proved the list of transactions of the aforesaid dates which are marked as Ext.Ka-54 to 56, respectively. Similarly, in RD A/c No. 100771, the accused/appellant made entries of Rs. 50/- each on 27.8.83 and 16.9.83 and Rs. 100/- on 8.11.83 in the passbook which are Ext.Ka-20 to Ka-23, respectively but the same was also not deposited by the accused/appellant in the said account. Similar is the case with other account holders like Chandra Pal with A/c No. 100864, Shankar Pal with RD A/c No. 10090078, Gyan Chand with A/c No. 100865 who also gave money to the accused/appellant for depositing in the post office but the accused/appellant made entries of the amount in their passbooks but did not deposit the same in the Post Office. The prosecution further got examined P.W.8 Ved Ram to get its case proved who stated that he was posted as Ledger Clerk in Ledger Section at Head Post Office, Aligarh. He has categorically stated in his statement that with regard to the above-said entries, he did not make entries in the ledgers cards because neither there were any such detail in the list of transactions sent by Gabhana Post Office nor he had received any vouchers in respect of depositing of the aforesaid amounts. P.W.11 S.S. Yadav has also stated that his duty was to inspect the post office and Gabhana Post Office was under his work jurisdiction. He has proved the entries made by the appellant-accused Mahadeo Prasad in the passbooks of the various account holders which are Ext.Ka-1 to Ka-23, Ka-79 to Ka-81, Ka-86, Ka-87, Ka-96/1 and Ka-96/2. He has also proved the entries Ext.Ka-26, Ka35 to Ka-42, Ka-45, Ka-46, Ka-51 to Ka-53, Ka-57 to Ka-59, Ka-63 to Ka-70, Ka-82, Ka-116 and Ka-88. Likewise, P.W.9 Ghanshyam Saraswat and P.W.10 V.K. Gupta have also stated that they were working in the same post office where the appellant-accused was employed. Both of them have stated that the Investigating Officer had taken certain documents in his possession and thereafter prepared the seizure memos, which are Ex.Ka-114 and Ka-115. P.W.5 Bhupal Singh Sharma was also been examined by the prosecution who stated that during the relevant period he was posted as Senior Superintendent of Post office in Aligarh. He has proved the sanction accorded by him for prosecuting the appellant-accused, i.e. Ex.Ka-25. P.W.13 Raman Tyagi, Inspector CBI was also been examined who has made the necessary investigation of the case, recorded the statements of witnesses, took necessary documents into possession, prepared seizure memos, obtained the sanction for prosecuting the appellant-accused and on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet i.e. Ex.Ka-140. As per the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused, in the capacity of public servant, posted as Postal Assistant at Gabhana Post Office, dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the funds of the saving bank/recurring deposit account holders of the post office as a public servant, for his own use, thereby committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the money of the account holders. Thus, in view of the detailed discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been fully successful in proving its case against the appellant- accused Mahadeo Prasad u/s 409 IPC and further u/s 5(2) of the Act and he was rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial court as discussed above and there is no ground to interfere with the aforesaid judgment and order.

For the reasons as recorded above, the appeal preferred by the appellant-accused is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 23.12.1992 passed by Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused as discussed above, is hereby affirmed. He is on bail. Let him be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as awarded against him. His bail bonds are cancelled.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned for compliance of the order forthwith.