State vs L.V. Mahesh

N. Ananda, J.—The respondent-accused was tried for the following charges:-

That you accused being the Sales representative in AROMACO company from 22.10.90 was entrusted with approaching customers taking orders collecting amount and he received the confirmation from the company of CW-6 to the company of CW-1 Dailor barrel and instead of delivering the same to East to west perfumery works company, you sold the same to CW-7 to 10 through others and misappropriated the account of the company to the tune of Rs. 3,01,525/- without accounting the same in the account book during April 94 to May 95 and misappropriated for your personal gain and committed criminal breach of trust to CW-1 and committed the offence punishable u/S. 408 IPC within my cognizance.

That on above said period, time and place you accused being the sales representative in AROMACO had forged the signatures of CWs-3, 7, 8 and 10 on the invoices and other documents and used said invoices as genuine one knowingly fully well that they were forged and caused wrongful loss to the company of CW-1 to the tune of Rs. 3,01,525/- and thereby committed the offence punishable u/S. 468 IPC within my cognizance.

That during above said period, time and place you accused being the Sales Representative in AROMACO company has made falsification of account in the books of account of the company of CW-1 and misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs. 3,01,525/- for your personal gain and thereby committed the offences punishable u/S. 477A IPC within my cognizance.

In order to prove the above charges, prosecution was required to prove that during the period between April 1994 to May 1995, the accused was a sales representative in M/s. Aromaco Company, the accused had sold Dailor barrel to CWs 7 to 10 through others instead of delivering the same to East to West Perfumery Works company and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,01,525/-.

The accused in order to misappropriate a sum of Rs. 3,01,525/- had forged signatures of CWs 3, 7 and 8 on invoices and other documents and forged the documents as genuine documents. During the relevant time, the accused had falsified the entries in the books of accounts of M/s. Aromaco Company.

I have heard the learned SPP.

During the relevant period, PW-1 K.N. Nagendra was one of the partners of M/s. Aromaco company, Bangalore. During cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that during the year 1994-95, accused was not in charge of Aromaco Firm. He has also admitted, in the lorry receipts marked as Exs. P27 to P29, the original seals of M/s. Aromaco Company are affixed. He has also admitted that the lorry receipts marked as Exs. P27 to P29 bear the signatures of one Krishnamurthy. In Ex. P29 lorry receipt dated 04.06.1994, seal of Aromaco company is affixed. One Praveen Kumar has affixed his signature to the lorry receipts for having received the goods. In Ex. P30, consignment receipt dated 04.06.1994, under which goods were consigned to Bangalore, signature of one Praveen Kumar is found. Similarly, in Ex. P31 lorry receipt dated 04.06.1994, the signature of one Praveen Kumar is found.

The prosecution has failed to establish that accused had forged signatures of the said Praveen Kumar. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused was in charge of Aromaco firm during the year 1994-95. The prosecution has not examined the said Praveen Kumar and Krishnamurthy. The delivery of goods in terms of the afore-stated lorry receipts has not been controverted by the prosecution.

PW-7 was working as the Customer service executive of Patel roadways limited during the relevant period. PW-7 has deposed; that the goods were consigned through the Patel Roadways and they were delivered to M/s. Aromaco company as per lorry receipts marked as Exs. P31 and P32.

Therefore, evidence of PW-1 that accused had raised invoices in the name of East West Perfumery company and sold the same in the open market and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,01,525/- is not free from reasonable doubt. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held that prosecution has failed to prove entrustment of goods to the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused had sold the goods in the open market. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused had forged invoices to divert the goods to open market. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused had falsified the books of accounts. On proper appreciation of evidence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.