State of Punjab vs Baj Singh

A.S. Nehra, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 18, 1987, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, by which the judgment and order dated January 18, 1986, rendered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti, convicting and sentencing Baj Singh, respondent (hereinafter called the ''accused'') to various terms of imprisonment and fine under Sections 409, 467 and 468, Penal Code, was set aside and the accused was acquitted.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:-

The case against Baj Singh accused was registered on the basis of the complaint made by Shri Bakhtawar Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Valtoha, which was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar vide letter No. 1042, dated September 29, 1977. In the complaint it was stated that the complainant was working as Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Valtoha and the accused was posted as Head Clerk in his office and that on April 18, 1975, Manohar Lal, Accounts Clerk was transferred and the charge of his seat was got handed over to the accused by the complainant. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant issued cheque No. 191042/001911 dated July 14, 1976 for Rs. 6,000/- to be drawn from the accounts of the Samiti for official expenses and handed over the same to Baj Singh after making endorsement thereon for getting it encashed from the Treasury. The accused made a credit entry of Rs. 6000/- in this regard at page 152 of the cash book on July 14, 1976 in his own hand. The aforesaid cheque was in the hand of Baj Singh accused and he obtained his signatures thereon. Similarly, Baj Singh accused prepared Cheque No. 191045/001911 dated 30-9-1976 for Rupees 3,000/-, cheque No. 191048/001911, dated 11-10-1976 for Rs. 1000/-, cheque No. 191064/ 001911, dated 25-5-1977 for Rs. 6300/- and cheque No. 191065/001911 dated 21-6-1977 for Rs. 6000/ - and obtained signatures of the complainant. The complainant made endorsement on the back of these cheques in favour of Baj Singh and handed over the same to Baj Singh for encashment from the Treasury. The credit entry regarding receipt of Rs. 3000/- was made by the accused at page 162 of the cash book on September 30, 1976 and credit entry with respect to Rs. 1000/- was made by him at page 164 of the cash book on October 11,1976. The accused did not make credit entries with respect to the last two cheques dated 25-5-1977 and 21-6-1977 for Rs. 6300/- and 6000/- respectively. The compainant attested the entries regarding the first three cheques in the cash book after seeing their counterfoils. The accused remained absent from the office for so many days in the month of June, 1977. In July, 1977 he remained absent from the office from 25-7-1977 till September 29, 1977, i.e. the date of filing of the complaint. In his absence, Sh. Harbans Singh, Senior Auditor of the Department, came to the complainant''s office on August 16, 1977 for 5 days for making audit, but he could not make any audit as the record was with the accused. On August 19, 1977, the complainant got the cash book, Treasury Pass Book and the cheque book searched from the office room of the accused and on checking them he found that the accused had drawn Rs. 8000/-, Rs. 4000/-, Rs. 11000/-, Rupees 16300/- and Rs. 9000/- respectively from the treasury against the aforementioned five cheques and in this way he had drawn a sum of Rs. 26000/- in excess from the treasury fraudulently and misappropriated the amount of the last two cheques for Rs. 25300/- by not entering the same in the cash book. Thus in all, embezzlement of Rs. 38,300/- by the accused came to the complainant''s notice. In this respect, the complainant wrote D. O. letter No. 868 dated August 19, 1977, to Sh. Parduman Singh, District Development and Panchayat Officer, Amritsar. It is further stated in the complaint that on June 30, 1977, the accused prepared a cheque bearing No. 191066/001911, dated June 30, 1977, in his own hand, obtained his (complainant''s) signatures and endorsement on the back of the cheque was made in the name of Ram Parkash Puri, who got the said cheque encashed from the Treasury. Ram Prakash Puri had given in writing that he had handed over the said money to Baj Singh for payment of salary to the employees. Thus Baj Singh accused made an embezzlement of Rs. 44,300/-, which came to the notice of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Valtoha. Besides this, at Page 89 of the original cash book the accused has mentioned that two amounts i.e. Rs. 605/- and Rs. 1797-80 were transferred from the cash book of the Samiti, but on inspection it was found that both these amounts had not been entered in the cash book of the Samiti. These two amounts had also been misappropriated by the accused. The complainant wrote another D. O. letter No. 1028 dated September 27, 1977 to Sh. Parduman Singh, District Development and panchayat Officer, Amritsar, requesting him to visit the spot and get the chest (safe) broken, count the cash and get the charge handed over to the new Accountant. On receipt of the aforesaid D. O. letter, the District Development and Panchayat Officer ordered that the complainant should get a case registered against Baj Singh, Head Clerk, on the basis of this letter, the case was registered against the accused by Sh. Harbhupinder Singh, Moharrir Head Constable. The case was investigated by ASI Roop Chand, who found that the abovesaid amounts were embezzled from the Samiti Fund in connivance with Sh. Bakhtawar Singh, the then Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The Investigating Officer took into possession the necessary cheques, cash book, Samiti Book, Treasury Book and other relevant registers, arrested the accused and on completion of the investigation got him challaned through Shri Rajinder Kumar, S. H. O.

The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt to the accused, examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1 Harbans Singh, Naib Tehsildar stated that he took the specimen signatures of Baj Singh accused and proved Ex. PA to PF. P.W. 2 A. K. Bhanot, Manger, State Bank of Patiala, stated that he proved the confirmation letter Ex. P. G. P.W. 3 V.K. Bhalla, Assistant Treasury Officer deposed that from July 4, 1975 to July 1979 he remained posted as Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Division, Patti, and from the relevant record proved the entry. Ex. PH. of encashment of cheque No. 191045 dated 27-9-1976 for Rs. 4000/ - and endorsement thereon, Ex. PA/1, Cheque No. 191042 dated 14-7-1976 for Rs. 8000/-, entry whereof is Ex.PA/2 on the photostat copy marked Ex.PJ, cheque No. 191048 dated 13-10-1976 for Rs. 11,000/- the entry Ex. PA/3 whereof is made or/its photostat copy Ex. PJ, cheque No. 191064 dated 25-5-1977 for Rs. 16,300/-, entry Ex.PA/4 whereof is made on its photostat copy Ex. PK, cheque No. 191065 dated 2-6-1977 for Rupees 9000/-, entry Ex.PA/5 whereof is made on its photostat copy, Ex. PL, cheque No. 190166 dated 30-6-1977 for Rs. 6000/-, entry Ex.PA/6 whereof is made on its photostat copy Ex. PM. PW3 stated that all these cheques were passed by him for getting the payment from the Bank. P.W. 3/1 Harbans Singh, Superintendent handed over to the police the tour programme register, Ex. P.I, starting from 18-3-1975 to 30-12-1976 and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PN. P.W. 5 Karnail Singh handed over to the police cheque book, Ex. P.3, pass book Ex. P.4, three cash books Ex. P.5 to Ex. P.7 tour programme register, Ex. P. 1, who took them into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P. O. P.W. 6 Ram Prakash Puri, Accounts, Clerk proved counter-foil marked ''A'' in cheque book Ex. P.3, entry Ex. P.8 on Cash Book Ex. P.5, for Rs. 6000/ - marked A/6, counterfoil of cheque book Ex. P.3 and entries Ex. P.9 to P. 11 on register Ex. P.5 and entries Ex. P. 12 to P. 14 on register Ex. P.6, which were made in the hand of Baj Singh accused. P.W. 6 Mehnga Ram, who was Accountant on October 20, 1977, handed over to ASI Roop Chand five registers, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PD, and these include passbooks from 29-1 -1974 to 14-9-1977 from pages 1 to 91, Ex. P.4, cash book pages 1 to 100 with an entry at Page 94, the last entry in the register Ex. P.7 being dated 19-8-1977, Samiti cash book from pages 1 to 102 from 8-5-1974 to 31-3-1977 Ex. P.5, cash book from pages 1 to 200 from 4-4-1977 to 1-7-1977 Ex. PX, cheque book containing cheques No. 191001/001911 to 191100/001911, P.W. 7 Ram Nath handed over to ASI Roop Chand letters Ex.PW.7/1 and P.W.7/2, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P.W.7/3. P.W.8 Amar Singh arrested the accused. P.W.9 Santokh Singh is a document expert witness, who gave his report, Ex.P.W.9/L.

At the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of Baj Singh accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Criminal PC. The accused denied the prosecution allegations as being incorrect and baseless. He also appeared as D. W. 1 and admitted his signatures on the cheques and payment of the cheques having been received by him. He further stated that he had handed over the same to Bakhtawar Singh (complainant) vide receipts Ex. D. 1 to D, 3 and that the responsibility for maintaining the cash book cash register and cheque books was that of Bakhtawar Singh. In his defence, the accused examined Harbhajan Singh (D.W.2) and Santokh Singh (D.W.3), D.W.2 Harbhajan Singh, who was Supreintendent and was well conversant with the signatures of Bakhtawar Singh, identified his signatures on Exhibits P.I, P.2, P.W.9/A, P.W.9/C and P.W. 9/D, i.e. cheques No. 191042 and 191045 and also on Ex. P.W.9/B, and also stated that the pass books and cheque books remained in the custody of the Executive Officer. D.W. 3 Santokh Singh also identified the signatures of Bakhtawar Singh on Exhibits D. 1 to D.5. He stated that Ex.DA was typed by him and he had prepared the receipts in duplicate. He further stated that he had typed all these documents at the instance of Bakhtawar Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer. He further stated that the cheque books and cash hooks were being kept by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and that the charge of Rs. .31,597/- as per document Ex.D.4 was given in his presence.

The accused stands charge-sheeted for an offence under 409, 467, Penal Code, on the plea that he being a public servant was entrusted with the property of the Panchayat Samiti, Valtoha, of which he committed criminal breach of trust by preparing the forged documents and using the same as genuine and thus caused loss to the Panchayat Samiti. The payment of the cheques having been received by the accused has been duly verified by the Sate Bank of Patiala vide its letter No. 4572 dated July 28, 1982, as under :-

------------------------------------------------------------------ Cheque No. Date Amount Date of payment ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 191045/001911 27-9-76 Rs. 4000/- 27-9-1976 2. 191042/001911 14-7-1976 Rs. 8000/- 14-7-1976 3. 191048/001911 13-10-76 Rs. 11000/- 14-10-76 4. 191064/001911 25-5-77 Rs. 16300/- 26-5-1977 5. 191065/001911 2-6-77 Rs. 9000/- 3-6-1977 6. 191066/001911 Rs. 6000/- 1-7-1977 ------------------------------------------------------------------

This is reflected in Ex. P.G. It shows that the accused had made some additions/alterations in the cheques. As per the record, cheque No. 191045/ 001911 was for Rs. 3000/- whereas it was got encashed for Rs. 4000/-. The cheque Ex.PW9/B indicates that the payment was received by the accused. Similarly, cheque bearing No. 191042 dated July 14, 1976 was for Rs. 6000/- and the accused after altering this figure to Rs. 8000/- received the payment against this cheque as is evident from EX.PW9/A. Cheque No. 191064 was issued by Bakhtawar Singh for receiving the payment of Rs. 6300/-, but against that the accused received the payment of Rs. 16300/- as is evident from the endorsement on the back of the cheque, Ex.PW9/D. Cheque bearing No. 191048 Ex.P. 1 was issued to the accused for receiving the payment of Rs. 1000/-, but he received payment of Rs. 11000/- as is evident from Ex.PW9/8, by adding digit ''1'' before Rs. 1000/- and thus made all these forged cheques and received cash against the same and did not deposit the amount in the Treasury.

During his cross-examination, Baj Singh accused has himself admitted to have received the payment against cheques Exhibits PW9/A to PW9/D. He has also admitted that Manohar Lal was transferred and he was given additional charge of accounts by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. He has also admitted that he used to fill in the cheques and it is proved from the evidence on record that he used to obtain the signatures of Bakhtawar Singh. Under these circumstances, we need not discuss the matter as to whether on the relevant dates, the accused was working as Accounts Clerk in the office of the Panchyat Samiti or he was entrusted with the Government money.

Mrs. Vaneeta Sapra, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that as per Rule 25 of the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Rules, the custody of the funds of the Panchayat Samiti rests with the Executive Officer and withdrawal is made only by cheques signed either by the Executive Officer or the Secretary, as the case may be. Rule 26 of these Rules says that the pass book is to be kept by the Executive Officer. The cash book, payment of money and ledgers are to remain in the custody of the Executive Officer and no one else other than the Executive Officer is responsible for payments, etc. The factum of maintaining the cash books, ledgers etc. by the Executive Officer is admitted, but the fact remains that Baj Singh accused himself has admitted that he used to fill in the cheques and it is also proved from the evidence on record that Baj Singh accused obtained signatures of Bakhtawar Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer on the cheques. The accused has admitted the fact that he was entrusted with the working of the Accountant and that he had received the payment of money from the banks on behalf of the Panchayat Samiti.

The evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution need not be discussed in detail as Baj Singh accused had admitted his signatures on the back of the cheques in token of having received the payment and that he was given the additional charge of the Accountant on the transfer of Manohar Lal. According to the opinion of the Documents Expert, Ex. PW9/K, given by Santokh Singh (P.W.9), there are marks of eraser in the red enclosed portion stamped Mark ''Q5'' to the original writing, which could be diciphered and read as "ON", which has been altered to the existing writing reading "eleven." There are marks of over-writing and additions in the red enclosed portion stamped as mark "Q6". The existing figure "1" in the ten thousand place appears to be addition. The figure "1" in the thousands place and top horizontal stroke after the existing figures reading "Rs. 11000" has been over-written with an ink of different tint. This is crystal clear from the perusal of cheque bearing No. 191048, Ex.P. 1. In cheque No. 191064, Ex.P.2, there is an alteration from "6300" to 16300. This portion has been marked "Q8." Digit "1" was written afterwards. P.W.9 Santokh Singh has categorically stated that he received document, Ex.PW9/A, bearing his marking as "Q.1." Ex. PW9/B bearing � his marking "Q.2", Ex. PW9/C bearing his marking as "Q.3""Ex.P.W.9/D bearing his marking as "Q.4", Ex. P.W. 9/C also containing markings as "Q.5" and "Q.6", Ex. P.W.9/D also containing his markings as "Q.7" and "Q.9". The Document expert stated that there were marks of over-writing and addition in the red enclosed portion stamped and marked as "Q.6" and that the existing figure " 1" in the ten thousand place appeared to be an addition. Figure'' 1'' in the thousand place , and top horizontal stroke, after the existing figure reading " 11000" had been over written with ink of different tint. This witness has further opined in Ex. P.W.9/K that the existing letter ''teen'' in the existing writing reading ''16'' in the red enclosed portion stamped as mark "Q.7" and "Q.9" are additions. In cheque Ex.P.2, the existing figure "1" in the thousand place in the red enclosed portion stamped and marked "Q.8" appears to be an addition. The existing figures reading as "6300" have been over-written with ink of different tint. The accused has given no explanation whatsoever for these additions and alterations in the cheques.

Baj Singh accused in his defence-has stated that vide receipts Ex. D1 to D3 he had handed over the money to Bakhtawar Singh, the then Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Receipt Ex. D.3 shows that the accused had handed over Rs. 3000/- to Bakhtawar Singh for the construction of boundary wall of the office and this receipt is dated June 21, 1977. This document is of no help to the accused as there was no charge that any amount was withdrawn by him on June 21,1977, which was received by Bakhtawar Singh, the then Block Development and Panchayat Officer from him. Ex.D.I is another receipt dated July 25, 1977 for Rs. 10000/-. This document is of no help to the accused as there is no charge against him that he did not return Rs. 1000/- to Bakhtawar Singh. Moreover, there is also no such allegation against the accused that he withdrew Rs. 10000/- from the treasury and did not deposit the same with the Panchayat Samiti or did not enter the same in the cash register. Similar is the position with regard to Rs. 13000/- which was alleged to have been given by Baj Singh accused to Bakhtawar Singh. This receipt pertains to Rs. 10,000/-, but the accused was only asked to withdraw Rs. 1000/- for which he was given a cheque signed by Bakhtawar Singh. There is allegation against him that he forged this Cheque and withdrew Rs. 11000/- from the bank as against Rs. 1000/- by adding digit '' 1'' before figure '' 1000''. So these receipts are not at all helpful to the accused. Moreover, there is no such department, where a superior officer gives receipt for taking amount from his subordinates. The Government money is only deposited either in the treasury or its endorsement is made in the cash book. However, in the instant case the accused has failed to establish that this amount was ever entered in the cash book. Morever, the accused did not lead any evidence to show that receipts Ex.D1 to D3 bear the signatures of Bakhtawar Singh. A bare perusal of the signatures on receipts, Ex. D. 1 to Ex. D.3, shows that these do not tally with those on Ex. D.4 and his leave application, Ex.D.5. Although he has examined some department''s officials as witnesses, who are not experts, but they have simply tried to support their collegue. so, their mere statements are not sufficient in the absence of any expert opinion. Moreover, it is the accused who has taken the stand that he had handed over the money to Bakhtawar Singh and it was for him to adduce sufficient evidence to dislodge the prosecution case.

The defence taken by the accused seems to be an after-thought. Moreover, the accused having admitted that he used to withdraw the amount from the bank after getting the cheques endorsed in his name from Bakhtawar Singh, it became his duty to prove each and every payment received by him to have been utilised by the Panchayat Samiti, but he has not discharged this onus. On the other hand, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that all the cheques in dispute were endorsed in the name of the accused and it was he who had made additions and alterations in the cheques and withdrew more amounts than the required ones as is clearly proved by the evidence on the record as well as by the certificate of the State Bank of Patiala, Ex. PG. The accused has given no account in respect of utilisation of the said amount or handing over the said amount to Bakhtawar Singh by producing reliable or cogent evidence on the record and as such he is liable for the said lapses.

Mr. S. S. Dhaliwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has contended that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and the Additional Sessions Judge has erred in acquitting the respondents while relying upon the judgments of this Court in Kailash Nath v. State of Punjab 1986 Cri P&H 257, and Des Raj Singhal v. State of Punjab, 1986 (89) LR 82 P&H.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, we find force in the contention riased by Mr. Dhaliwal. Above mentioned judgments of this Court have been set aside by the apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Kailash Nath, .

In view of the above discussion and the evidence on record, we hold that the prosecution has fully proved the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused was a public servant and in his capacity as a public servant, he was entrusted with public fund of which he has committed criminal breach of trust by forging the cheques and using them as genuine ones. Therefore, we hold him guilty of the offences under 409, 467 and 468 of the Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under 409, Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months u/s 467, Penal Code, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under 468, Penal Code. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently.