STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BRIJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.11 1986 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Hissar, by which Brij Singh respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 409, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under :

(3.) The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hissar, sent a written complaint addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar, alleging therein that one Mohinder Singh, Inspector of the Co-operative Socities, had inspected the accounts being maintained by one Dalip Singh and Brij Singh accused, and reported against both the persons that they had embezzled certain amounts. The allegation against Brij Singh accused was that he had collected an amount of Rs 36,423/- from different loanees as payments towards loans but had not accounted for the same. In addition thereto, it was reported by Inspector Mohinder Singh that an amount of Rs 12,193 33 paise, cash in hand, had also been embezzled by Brij Singh accused It was further mentioned in the report by Inspector Mohinder Singh that Brij Singh accused had thus embezzled an amount of Rs 48, 616 33 paise which he had collected from different loanees. The details of the loanees from whom the amounts were received by Brij Singh accused on a particular date, are mentioned in the report. The names of the loanees are Harphul son of Jeewan, Sant Lal son of Tansukh, Hari Singh son of Sheo Narain, Ashok son of Jethu Ram, Mange Ram son of Tokha Ram, Birbal son of Sheoji. Gulzari son of Khamana, Pala Ram son of Mam Chand. Sheo Chand son of Jeewan, Ram Narain son of Pat Ram, Mani Ram son of Sholu, Nihala son of Sheo Nath, Ram Kumar son of Sheo Nath, Rugha son of Nand Singh Thakur and Om Parkash son of Parbhu Dayal On the basis of the complaint received from the Assistaut Registrar Co-operative Societies, a case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No 509 dated 12 11 1976 in Police Station, Hissar, under Section 409, Indian Penal Code Three separate challans were presented against the accused. The present case is one of the three cases, based on that complaint.