- (1.) Appellant herein was appointed as peon and has been working in the said capacity in Respondent Bank with effect from 4.4.1984. He was confirmed in his services. On an allegation made that he had forged the signature of a depositor Rattan Singh and fraudulently withdrawn a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 11.4.1989, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. A criminal case was also initiated under Section 409/201 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted in the criminal case. A purported confession which he had allegedly made was found to have been done under undue coercion. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate noticed that even Rattan Singh did not make any complaint. The other officers who were said to be involved were not proceeded against.
(2.) It was held: (i) A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was not standing to the credit of so called Rattan Singh on 11th April, 1989. (ii) The appellant was found to have been threatened by the officers. (iii) His complaints soon after his release from the hands of the bank officials had not been taken note of. (iv) An adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution witness Mukhtiar Singh in regard to encashment of the withdrawal form without observing due formalities. (v) Above all, Rattan Singh was not examined.
(3.) It was also held: "Sixthly, the amount in question is alleged to have been misappropriated on 11th April, 1989, whereas this defalcation was detected on 29th May, 1989 obviously after a long spell. Extra judicial confession can be taken of not only a case of its having been made shortly after the preparation of crime. Seventhly, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is so incompatible inconsistent and weak that no conviction can be passed thereon. Eightly, there is no direct evidence worth the name of the record connecting the accused in any manner with her offence.";