The State of Bihar vs Baidya Nath Thakuar

Deepak Kumar, J.—The appeal is directed against he judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court by its judgment dated 9th March, 1994 in G.R. Case No. 537 of 1990/T.R. No. 82 of 1994 passed by Sri Vijay Kumar Mandal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar.

The prosecution case was started on the basis of First Information Report given by Satya Narain Sah, Narain Sah, informant, who is the Inspector of Post Office.

The prosecution case in short is that accused, Baidya Nath Thakur was posted as Sub Post Office, Deoghar between 28. 1989 to 6.1.1990 and in his official capacity he procured the S.B. Account Pass Books from the depositors, Shankar Rout and Lal Gopal Narone for calculating interest and adding the annual interest thereon. It is alleged that he failed to return the Pass Book and when complain was made to the informant then he inspected the ledger and found that the accused, Baidya Nathe Thakuar, Sub-Postmaster had withdrawn Rs. 9,000/- (Nine thousand) from S.B. Account No. 1090003 of Shankar Rout on 28.4.1989 and further he had withdrawn Rs. 2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) from S.B. Account No. 190116 of Lal Gopal Narone of 6.1.1990 by forging. withdrawal slips putting the forged signatures of the depositors, and he stated that they had not withdrawal amount nor the withdrawal slop had been signed by them then he called the accused whereupon he accepted that he had withdrawn the same. Thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant, Inspector of Post Office.

The police registered a case Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet.

In course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses. P.W. 1 Sri Shankar Rout and P.W. is depositor No. 2 Lal Gopal Narone. P.W. 3, Tripti Singh, who turned hostile and P.W. 4 Achinta Kumar Mohan, who also urned hostile, P.W. 5 is the informant, Satya Narain Sah and P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer the case, who proved the fardbeyan, F.I.R. and filing of charge-sheet.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant-State that by the evidence of the two depositors, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who prove the fact that their pass books was obtained by the accused and he with malafide intention kept their pass books with them them a complain was made to the informat, Inspector of Post Office, who on verification found that Rs. 9,000/- was withdrawn from the account of P.W. 1 Shankar Rout and Rs. 2, 500/- was withdrawn from the account of P.W. 2 Lal Gopal Narone. The fact was inquired and verified by P.W. 5 and P.W. 5 also supported the case. Hence the respondent, Baidya Nath Thakur was only fit to be convicted for the offence charged and the order of acquittal is bad in law and is only fit to be set aside and the respondent should be found guilty.

Since nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Court with the help of A.P.P. scrutinized the evidences meticulousy and found as follows.

After going through the entire prosecution evidences, I find that out of 6 witnesses examined by the prosecution only P.Ws. 1 and 2 and 5 are relevant witnesses. P.W 1 Shankar Rout stated before the Court that he had S.B. Account No. 1090003 Hindi Vidya Pith Post Office since 1986. He had about 11, 102. 11 paise deposited in the account. The Post Master of the Post Office, Vaidya Nath Thakur had taken the pass book for entering interest in the pass Book, but gave No receipt of the pass book. In March, 1990 but in spite of reminders he failed to return the pass book then he reported the matter to the inspector of Post Officer, Satya Narain Sah the Inspector after verifying the ledger asked him as to whether he had withdrawn Rs. 9,000/- and on his denial he brought out the withdrawal slop and asked him as to whether his signature of not to which he denied and said that he had not signature was verified or not. He also accepted that the Investigating Officer never took his signature for verification. P.W. 2 also stated similarly that on 1.6.1990 Rs. 2, 500/- had withdrawn from his account and during verification the Inspector had shown him the withdrawal slip and he has stated before him that he has not signed the withdrawal slip. He further stated that subsequently Rs. 2,500 was returned to him by accused, Baidya Nath Mandal. In his cross-examination, he stated that money is withdrawn only after verifying the signature with the original signature kept in the post office. He also admitted that the Investigating Officer during investigation had not taken his signature for any verification of the signature made in the withdrawal slip. P.Ws. 3 is the informant of the case he stated that on 2.6. 1990 he was Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Office posted at Deoghar and on that date on the complain of depositors, Shandar Rourt and Lal Gopal Naraone. He had filed a written complain to the police he proved the written report as Ext. 2.

He further stated that the depositors Shandar Rout and Lal Gopal Narone made a complaint to him that their pass book was taken by the Post Master of Hindi Vidya Pith for entering the interest, but he had not returned their pass book . He verified the ledger and found that Rs. 9,000/- was withdrawn from the account of Lal Gopal Narone of 6.1.1990 and when the depositors stated that it is not their signature then he filed the case he proved the ledger as Ext. 3 and the entries at page 127 as Ext. 3/1 and entry at page No. 149 as Ext. 3/2. He also proved the signature on the entry of the accused, Baidya Nath Thakur as Ext. 4. He also proved the transaction report of 28.4.1989 as Ext, 5 and transaction report of 6.1.1990 as 5/1 send by the accused. He stated that Vaidya Nath Thakur on inquiry admitted that he had withdrawn amount by making forge signature from his house many other pass book of depositors was recovered. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the sample signatue was not seized by him. He had only seized the withdrawal form of Rs. 9,000/- and Rs. 2, 500/- He had not kept the said form in any seal cover. He never prepared any seizure-list of the withdrawal slips. P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer of the case, has proved the F.I.R. He also proved the seizure-list of the ledger and other documents as Ext. 8 and after investigation submitted charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seized the accepted signatures of Shankar Rout and Lal Gopal Narone from the post office. He never took the sample signature of the two depositors, Shandar Rout and Lal Gopal Narone; He also never took the signature of the accused for any verification. He never during investigation sent two withdrawal slops signed by the accused in the name of Shankar Rout and Lal Gopal Narone for examination to handwriting expert.

Thus, After going through entire evidence, find that the most that the most important document the withdrawal slip of 9,000/- rupee made by the accused from the account of P.W. 1 Shankar Rout and the withdrawal slip of 2,500/- made by the accused from the account of P.W. 2, Lal Gopal Narone was not filed by the prosecution in Court nor it was proved. It has also come in the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 6 that the signature on the withdrawal form was forged or not, was never verified by any handwriting expert during investigation or during investigation or during trial. In such a situation, I also find that the allegation of forging the withdrawal slip was not proved beyond doubt. More so when the accused denied that he forged the signature and the allegations are false. It is well settled principle of law as initiated by in various judgments of the Hon�ble Supreme Court including one reported tecently in 2007 (13) SCC 18 in the case of Ratan Lal v. State of Jammu Kashmir where the Hon�ble Supreme Court reiterating its previous view held the on the facts view taken by the trial court was a possible view and hence the High Court cannot take a different view even without the second view is also possible. It is well settled principle of law that in case of appeal against acquittal until and unless the appellat court find that there is �very substantial and compelling reasons for reversing the judgment of acquittal it cannot reverse the same. Such view was recently taken in the case of Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P.,

It appears from the judgment of the trial court that after discussing the entire prosecution case in para 5 the court came to a conclusive finding that the Investigation Officer has thus committed blunder and without ascertaining the forgery of the alleged withdrawal slip by the accused submitted charge-sheet in this case. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Sections 420, 465, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code view taken by the trial court is the only the conclusion.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the material document which could have be proved the case of the prosecution was withheld by the prosecution, the withdrawal slips were not verified by any expert during investigation or during trial, as such I find No no illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the trial court.

According the appeal is dismissed without any cost.