P.N.Goel - (1.) RAM Bharosey Lal appellant has been convicted and sentenced under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R. I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-.
(2.) FACTS leading to the conviction of the appellant may be stated at some length. There is co-operative union at Khandar within police station Jalalabad, district Shahjahanpur. This union is functioning from before the year 1962. Dal Singh (deceased) was supervisor or secretary of the Union. Bhagwat Singh (PW 11) was accountant of the Union. Ram Bharosey Lal appellant was undisputedly Kamdar of the Union. By resolution dated 25-12-1961 Ram Bharosey Lal was appointed treasurer also of the Union. There were co-operative societies in villages Chamardubi and Chandpur Chhatarpatti. Chhotey Singh (PW 1) was Sarpanch of Chamarduhi Socieity. Babu Singh (PW 22), S/o Chhotey Singh (PW 1) was accountant of the society. Bodhraj Singh (PW 2) was Sarpanch of Co-operative Society Chhatarpatti. Barey Lal, brother of Chhotey Lal (PW 6) was accountant of this society. Bareylal was illiterate. Therefore, Chhotey Lal used to do writing work on his behalf,. Lal Udaibir Singh (PW 7) was cashier of the society. Beth these co-operative societies were attached affiliated to cooperative union Khandar. There was a seed store of the co-operative union Khandar. Ram Bharosey Lal appellant used to remain at the seed store. In the month of August 1962 Chhotey Lal, sarpanch of Co-operative-society Chamarduhi received an information that a sum of Rs. 3,220/- be deposited in the co-operative union Khandar. Chhotey Singh collected money from the village people. He deposited Rs, 1, 420/- on 18-8-1962 and obtained receipt from Dal Singh supervisor. On 19-8-1962 he paid Rs. 1800/- to the appellant and obtained receipt from him Ex. Ka. 5. At the end of this receipt there is signature initial of Dal Singh. In the month of August 1962 Bodh Raj Singh sarpanch of co-operative society Chhatarpatti also received information to deposit Rs. 892/- in the cooperative union Khandar for the purpose of a brick-kiln. He collected money from the village people. On 19-8-1962 he handed over a sum of Rs. 892/- to the appellant and obtained. receipt Ex. Ka. 1. At the end of this receipt there is signature initial of Dal Singh, it is alleged that the appellant did not deposit the two amounts in the account of the co-operative union Khandar and misappropriated the said amounts. The appellants did not admit the allegation of the prosecution. His defence was that Chhotey Singh, Bodh Raj Singh and others were Thakurs by caste, that Dal Singh supervisor was also Thakur by caste, that Dal Singh used to embezzle the money, that after the death of Dal Singh he had been falsely implicated by the Thakurs. He asserted that he had not issued any receipt nor he had received any money as alleged.
(3.) THE prosecution examined Chhotey Singh, Bhole, Bir Sahai, Bhagwat Singh and Babu Singh (P. Ws. 1, 3, 4, 11 and 22) to prove payment of Rs. 1,800/- on 19-8-1962 to the appellant. Babu Singh proved relevant entries in the books of Cbamarduhi Cooperative Society. THE prosecution further examined Bodh Raj Singh, Chhotey Lal and Lal Udaibir Singh to [prove payment of Rs. 892/- to the appellant on 19-8-1962. Chhotey Lal further proved relevant entries in the books of co-operative Society Chandpur Chhatarpatti. THE prosecution then examined Ram Dutt Singh (P. W. 26) II Officer Crime Branch C. I. D. Bareilly, who investigated into the case. He took sample writings of the appellant. Kedar Nath Prasad (P. W. 3) hand writing expert compared the sample hand writing of the appellant with the hand writing and signatures/initials on the receipts Exs. Ka. 5 and Ka. 1 and expressed the opinion that they were written by one and she same person. He also compared the signature of Dal Singh with the signature on these two receipts and expressed the opinion that they were not in the hand writing of the same person. THE prosecution also examined some village people who had contributed the two amounts in question. THE prosecution also examined Mohammad Shoeb (P. W. 23), Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies. He proved the duties of the Supervisor and Kamdar. He found that the two amounts in question were not deposited in the account of the co-perative union Khandar. THErefore, he gave report of embezzlement to the District Magistrate and District Planning Officer. On an examination of the entire material before him the learned II Additional Sessions Judge Shahjahanpur [held that the two amounts were entrusted to the appellant, that he had not deposited the said amounts in the account of the co-operative union and that he had misappropriated the said amounts. Consequently the appellant was convicted.;