STATE Vs. GULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Gulab Singh accused of an offence under Section 409, Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case was briefly this. Gulab-Singh was a cashier in the Panchayat Office at Udaipur, and used to remain in charge of moneys relating to that office. The money used to be kept in a safe which was placed in the office of the Inspector of Schools for safe custody. The accused left for Jaipur on casual leave on 24-5-1952, with the permission of Sundernath, the then Officiating Panchayat Officer. He should have returned to duty on the 29th of May, but did not. He sent applications for extension of his leave time and again. This extension however was not granted, but as the address of the accused was not known, he could not be informed of this refusal. In the meantime, Sundernath was relieved by Krishna Vallabh as Panchayat Officer on 31-5-1952. Krishna Vallabh wanted the keys of the safe in order to count the cash. Sundernath said that the keys were with the accused who had not returned. Thereafter, orders were sought from the Chief Panchayat Officer at Jaipur, who replied that the safe might be broken up. Preparations were made to break open the safe on 3-7-1952 in the presence of a gazetted officer. But on the same day, Harnath Singh, brother of the accused, appeared and produced four keys. The safe was opened with the help of these keys, and was found to contain Rs. 45/9/- only. There was thus a deficiency of Rs. 1,017/-/9 according to the account books. Consequently, a report was made on the 4th of July to the police that this amount had been embezzled by the accused. The accused appeared on 13-7-1952, and immediately produced the money. The prosecution case thus' is of temporary embezzlement from 24-5-1952, to 13-71952.

(3.) The accused also put forward his defence on the 13th July, to which he has stuck throughout. His case was that there were two compartments in the safe. In one compartment, which is under single lock, small cash is kept. In the other compartment, which is under double lock, deposits of Panchayats above Rs. 500/are kept. The key of this second or inner compartment is kept with the Panchayat Officer. Thus no money can be taken out of this second or inner compartment unless the cashier opens the safe, and the Panchayat Officer opens the inner compartment. The accused further said that orders had been received from Jaipur to send the amount relating to deposits there. Consequently, Sundernath, Panchayat Officer, took out the money from the inner compartment for purchase of a bank draft to be sent to Jaipur and gave it to him to take necessary steps. Sun-dernath's father was ill that day, and he went away from the office at 11 A. M. leaving instructions to the applicant to write out the necessary letters. The applicant went with the letters to the house of Sundernath who then said that he could not counter-sign them and money could, not be sent. Sundernath asked the accused to go back saying that he was coming, and would put the money back in the safe. The accused went back to the office, and waited till 4 P. M., but Sundernath did not come. It was a Saturday, and the office was to close at 1 P. M. so he went after 4 P. M. to Sundernath's house, and asked him to arrange to put back the money in the safe. Thereupon, Sundernath gave him two keys which used to be kept by him, and told the accused that the responsibility was his. As the accused could not put the money in the safe because the office was closed, and the choukidar would not permit him to touch the safe, he went home and kept the money there. Thereafter, he went away on leave. Later he applied for extension of leave from time to time. He denied that he Had absconded. The accused also produced the document Ex. Cl which bears the date 24th of May. In that document he complained to the Panchayat Officer that he was overburdened with work, and also incidentally mentioned that the money, which had been taken out, could not be put in the safe, and was at his house. This document bears the endorsement of Sundernath of the same date, namely 24-51952. The case of the accused, therefore, is that the money certainly remained in his possession, but there was no dishonest intention whatsoever on his part to misappropriate it.