RAJIB LOCHAN BEHERI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stood charged under Sections 408, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in G. R. Case Nos. 302 of 1975, 18 of 1977 and 17 of 1977 for having committed criminal breach of trust and forgery in respect of a sum of Rs. 204 out of Rs. 17,538 during the year 1971-72, Rs. 228 out of Rs. 18,351 during the year 1973-74 and Rs. 225 out of Rs. 19,275 during the year 1972-73 respectively which had been entrusted with him for disbursement as stipends payable to the children of the displaced goldsmiths by the Gold Control Department by falsely showing disbursements of the aforesaid amounts to Jagatjiban Prusty, who was a student of the Christ Collegiate School, of which the petitioner was the Headmaster, from 14-7-1967 to 30-6- 1969 having been admitted into class VI and who had left the school by obtaining a transfer certificate on 30-6-1969, by forging the signature of Jagatjiban Prusty and for having utilised as genuine the purported signatures of this showing disbursements of the aforesaid amounts. To bring home the charges to the petitioner, the prosecution had examined fifteen identical witnesses with the same serial numbers in each of the three cases and had placed reliance on a number of documents. The petitioner had admitted the entrustment of the aforesaid three sums with him for disbursement as stipends and according to him, the moneys entrusted with him had been disbursed and he had sent back the vouchers after being duly signed by the stipendiaries. His further case was that he had multifarious duties as the Headmaster of the school which had more than one thousand students on the rolls and for this, he had been entrusting different works to different teachers and Petitapaban Tripathy (P. W. 9), an Assistant Teacher of the school, had been entrusted by him with the work of disbursement of these amounts as he (petitioner) had no time for this and it was P.W. 9 who had prepared the claim statements. P.W. 9 had neither placed the Attendance Register nor the Mark Register when he placed the claim statements before him and he signed in good faith believing that P.W. 9 had prepared the statements basing on the records. He had thus no criminal animus and he had not misappropriated the amounts in question. The same two witnesses had been examined by him in his defence in the three cases.

(2.) On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court, on the basis of the evidence of the Expert (P.W. 18), who had compared the purported signatures of Jagatjiban Prusty (P.W. 10) with his admitted signatures and with the writings the petitioner came to find that the materials would not show that the petitioner had forged the signatures of P. W. 10, but the purported signatures of P. W. 10 were not his. The trial court accepted the prosecution case, rejected that of the defence and convicted the petitioner under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code while acquitting him of the other two charges. For his conviction under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months in each of the three cases. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the findings recorded by the trial court against the petitioner, but held that Section 408 would have no application to the cases and that the petitioner could legally be convicted under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal breach of trust and he was so convicted by the appellate court which maintained of the sentences passed against the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has passed one judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1979 and another common judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos. 169 and 170 of 1979. The three Criminal Revisions before me have been heard together, as agreed to by both the sides, as common questions of fact and law are involved and will be governed by this order.