Sardool Singh vs The State

Bedi, J.—The facts of this case briefly are as under :

The petitioner in this case was employed as a Manager of the Co-operative Marketing Cum-Processing Socitey, Ltd. Patti. In 1959-60 he working as the Cashier of the Society and was authorised to receive cash and sale-proceeds. He was to maintain records of the Society''s property. It was alleged that he embezzled Rs. 2928/8/6. After he resigned on 28th March, 1960, the petitioner was asked to submit accounts and pay the balance with him, but he failed to do so, as a result of which the Co-operative Societies Department held enquiries against him through Shri Gurbachan Singh, Sub Inspector. He reported against the petitioner having embezzled these items and also some others, as a result of which he was then asked to pay the amount, but he failed to do so. Thereupon Shri Vijay Singh, Assistant Registrar, sent a complaint on 13th August, 1960 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, on the basis of which a case against the petitioner u/s 409 of Indian Penal Code was registered. After due investigation the petitioner was challaned and sent up for trial.

The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. In his examination u/s 342 of Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner stated that he was emploved as a Cashier and Manager of the said Society and also kept its record. He also admitted that he had resigned on 28th March, 1960, and on that day he had Rs. 4248/-/3, which he had paid to Gurdip Singh P.W. and the remaining amount was with Sohan Lal Munim which was to be paid to the President of the Society after getting this amount from Sohan Lal. He further admitted that Rs. 1051/10/3 of the Society were with him but that amount was left by him with Sohan Lal Munim and after taking the same from him the petitioner paid it to the Sub Committee. The petitioner called Arjan Singh, Sohan Singh and Gurdip Singh D.Ws. in defence and then closed his case. The petitioner was convicted for temporary embezzlement of Rs. 1051/10/3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued this case at consideration (sic)mention that this amount was still due and about which the petitioner had promised to pay the same at an early date. It is also significant to note that the receipt in question did not receive the light of the day till 2nd May, 1962. In his own statement which he gave u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner did not disclose as to when he paid the amount in question to the Society. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for embezzlement of the above-mentioned amount for which they have given detailed reasons. I have no reason to differ from their finding.

The last point urged by the petitioner''s counsel was that after the examination of the Court witnesses in this case the petitioner had not been re-examined. But it is not obligatory for the Court to do so and in any case this commission only amounts to an irregularity, which does not vitiate the trial. In this connection see Kandhai v. Municipal Board, Rae Bareili (1938) 39 C. L. J. 841. Such authority can be multiplied- AIR 1926 154 (Lahore) AIR 1926 348 (Nagpur) AIR 1937 285 (Nagpur) Mahadu Raghavji Thakkar v. Emperor AIR 1928 Bom. 388. The revision, therefore, stands dismissed.