Giridhar Malaviya, J. - (1.)By the present appeal the State of U. P. has challenged the order dated 23.3.1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Duddhi Mirzapur in Criminal case No. 590-A of 1981 State Vs. Ram Gopal Shukla , whereby he acquitted the respondent Ram Gopal Shukla under Sections 409/471 IPC.
(2.)It appears that the respondent Ram Gopal Shukla was the head clerk in the Government College at Duddhi.During the year 1978, he received Rs. 1,823.21, but did not deposit the same in the Government account. He embezzled this amount and forged entries in the official records. Similarly in the year 1977, he received Rs. 124.80 p. which was again embezzled, and forged-entries in that respect were also made by the respondent. In the year 1980, he is alleged to have embezzled Rs. 11,764.97 for which he also made forgery its the record. In the year 1979, he is alleged to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 5,237.70 and forged the entries in that regard also. The principal of the college filed the first information report in this case. The case was registered. The respondent was chargesheeted, whereafter he was tried.
(3.)A perusal of the impugned order indicates that barring P.W. I Nand Lal Maurya, a lecturer of the Government College, who was asked by the principal to submit his report (Ex. Ka 1) to the Principal, after going into the allegations of embezzlement by the respondent, no other witness was examined by the prosecution despite quite some opportunity being given to the public prosecutor to examine the other witnesses. The court below consequently decided the case by closing the evidence of the prosecution only on the strength of the evidence of P.W. 1 Nand Lal Maurya. The court below found that so far as the entries in the official record were concerned although they were alleged to have been made by the respondent, yet they were not examined by an expert. The court below obviously thought that in the absence of any expert's opinion, the evidence of making forgery in the record could not be substantiated. The court also took into consideration the fact that no evidence had been produced before the court to indicate when and how much money had been received by the respondent and that also from which source. Holding that the solitary evidence of P.W. 1 could not establish any charge against the respondent, the court below acquitted the respondent from the charges under Sec. 409/471 I.P.C. against which the present appeal has been filed.