State of Punjab vs Atam Parkash

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Atam Parkash accusedrespondent was posted as Sub Post Master in the Post Office of Narot Jaimal Singh. One Jagdisho Rani wife of Kartar Chand opened an account in the post office on 10.5.1980 with initial deposit of Rs. 350/. On 17.7.1980 she deposited an amount of Rs. 1100/ in her account through her husband. Kartar Chand filled a payinslip form of Rs. 1100/ and the deposit was accepted by the respondent. The amount was correctly posted in saving account ledger but in the longbook be entered only an amount of Rs. 100/. He also made an alteration in the payinslip by reducing the amount of deposit to Rs. 100/ but the balance amount shown in that slip remained as Rs. 1450/. In this way the respomdent misappropriated the amount of Rs. 1000/ to his own use. Subsequently the depositor made withdrawals of Rs. 1200/ and Rs. 200/ on 1981980 and 26.61981 respectively bringing the balance to Rs. 50/. At, the time of last transaction the respondent retained the passbook with him and gave a receipt to the depositor on a plain paper with balance of Rs. 50/. The pass book was never handed over to the depositor and it was alleged that it had been lost but in fact it was destroyed by the respondent to eliminate the proof of misappropriation of Rs. 1000/. A letter was written by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Gurdaspur to Station House Officer, Narot Jaimal Singh containing these facts on the basis of which a case under Sections 409/201/477A IPC was registered against the respondent. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court of Shri Pritam Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, who tried the respondent for the above mentioned offences. Vide judgment dated 23.3.1984 it was held that the case against the respondent was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the respondent was acquitted which led the State of Punjab to file this appeal.

We have heard Shri S K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Shri Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the respondent and have perused the records.

It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the depositor "had handed over the cash to the respondent amounting to Rs. 1100/and this amount was shown in the ledger but in the longbook and list of transactions which the respondent sent to the head office, the amount was shown only as Rs. 100/. The remaining amount of Rs. 1000/ was misappropriated by the respondent. There was no, denial of the fact that the respondent was posted as SubPost Master at Narot Jaimal Singh vide appointment letter Ex. PA and the amount was received by him in his capacity as a public servant. The contention of the learned counsel is not well merited and a perusal of the record shows that the charge of misappropriation of any amount by the respondent is not proved, even if it is assumed that the amount of Rs. 1100/ was received by the respondent. Admittedly the account was opened by Jagdisho Rani with an initial amount of Rs. 350/ and subsequently she deposited Rs. 1100/. The total amount in her account was Rs. 1450/. This amount was so shown in the payinslip. She withdrew an amount of Rs. 1200/ on 19.8.1980 and Rs. 200/ on 26.6.1981. The balance amount left in her account was Rs. 50/ and a slip was given to her showing the amount of balance correctly when her passbook was retained. Copy of the entry in the ledger of Account No. 1121771 of Jagdisho Rani Ex. PC. contained correct entries regarding the deposit as well as the withdrawals. So there could not be any misappropriation of the amount of Rs.1000/ deposited by Jagdisho Rani. The mere fact that in the longbook the amount entered was Rs. 100/ instead of Rs. 1100/ will not lead to an inference that the amount was misappropriated. The entry could be wrong on account of clerical mistake. Misappropriation of the amount is not to be presumed but it is to be proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and reliable evidence. The prosecution did not produce any document to show that there was shortage of amount in the cash book or in the cash on any particular day. Unless there was actual shortage of the amount the charge of misappropriation could not be held as proved against the respondent. There was also no evidence to substantiate the charges under Section 477A and 201 IPC. The evidence on record was rightly evaluated by the learned trial Court before recording acquittal of the respondent. The findings of acquittal are, therefore, affirmed and the appeal is hereby dismissed as being without any merit.