State of H.P. vs Roshan Lal

Surinder Singh, J.—Both these appeals are arising out of FIR No. 61/1995, u/s 409 Indian Penal Code wherein same set of witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court to prove the charge with respect to different years. Thus to avoid conflicting judgments, both the appeals have been taken up together for decision.

Respondent was Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, in P & T Department at Sidhpur. It is alleged that in the year 1992, while posted as such, he embezzled the amount of the depositors and did not count for it. A complaint to this effect was received by the Sub Divisional Inspector Postal Jogindernagar Shri Uma Dutt Gautam. On inquiry, prima facie, he came to the conclusion that the amount deposited by Biasa Devi, Megh Singh, Parma Ram, Bimla Devi, Rohit Kumar, Lal Man Prasher, Kanta Devi, Meera Devi, Soma Devi and Snachri Devi in their RD saving accounts was handed over to him which was not deposited in their respective accounts. The total amount so embezzled was 9748/-. Thus a compliant was sent on 22.9.1994 to SHO Sarkaghat for the registration of the case and investigation.

Police took into possession various records, including the cash book, ledger and the documents with respect to appointment of the Respondent in the sub post office

Admitted writings and specimen signatures of the Respondent were obtained and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for its comparison.

Police recorded the statements of the witnesses, receipt of report of the expert, and on completing the investigation, presented three separate challans for the year 1992, 1993 and 1994 against the Respondent.

The present appeals pertain to the challans for the year 1992 and 1994.

The case of the Respondent was denial simplicitor. He also denied having received any money from the different persons for its deposit in their respective accounts, as alleged and also denied having misappropriated such an amount. He alleged false implication in the case to remove him from service and employ one Shri Biri Singh.

The learned trial Court acquitted the Respondent on the ground that none of the witnesses could substantiate the charge framed against the Respondent and there is no evidence on record to show that cash book against which the entries were allegedly made by the Respondent were in his hand.

We have gone through the record and reappraised the evidence on record.

PW4 Uma Dutt Inspector is also alleged to have conducted the audit of the said post office and stated that Respondent had embezzled the amount. We have perused his statement carefully. He had made a sweeping and general statement with respect to the embezzlement of the amount without giving its details. The audit report has also not been placed and proved on record. In cross-examination he admitted that after the removal of the Respondent, Shri Biri Singh was posted in his place on temporary basis. He further admitted that Mail officer also visited the same post office after every quarter for checking the record. But there is also nothing in evidence and during checking any such embezzlement was discovered. We also find that the entries in the ledger and the cash book have not been proved in accordance with law. Also we find that none of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Lal Man, PW2 Biasa Devi, PW3 Parma Ram, PW4 Uma Dutt, PW7 Snachri Devi, PW14 Megh Singh and PW15 Parwati Devi except PW16 Biasa Devi have supported the case of the prosecution. They turned hostile and stated that the accused had correctly made the entries in their pass-book with respect to the amount deposited by them and was also realized by them. They did not impute any allegation of embezzlement with respect to the money deposited by each of them with the Respondent. In so far as PW16 Biasa Devi is concerned although she claimed to have deposited the amount with the Respondent but she could not point out on which date what amount was handed over to the Respondent for its deposit in her RD account rather in cross examination she stated that whatever statement she had given that was on hearsay only. Therefore, in these circumstances even her statement could not bring home the guilt of the Respondent for the offence charged.

The specimen signatures which are alleged to have taken before the Magistrate, stands not proved as the then Magistrate was not examined, in whose presence the specimen signatures and hand writings were taken and when such writings and specimen signatures were taken, no such inquiry or trial was pending before the Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, in our considered opinion, he was not competent to take the specimen hand writings and signatures for its comparison by the Government Examiner of Questioned Document, at the instance of police during investigation of the case.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any material to convert the acquittal of the Respondent into conviction as the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court are reasonable and borne out from the record and the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Both the appeals san merits and are accordingly dismissed.

Respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case.