BARKAT ALI ZAIDI,J. - (1.) THE applicant is a Secretary Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Balla Majra, District Muzaffar Nagar. On 29 - 8 -2003 after a physical inspection of the Stocks of the Fertilizers by the Branch Manager, District Co -operative Bank Ltd. Muzaffar Nagar, it was found that there was shortage of 7242 bags of Urea and 106 bags D.A.P. costing Rs. 20,46,710/ -. Thereafter, the District Registrar Co -operative Societies ordered the enquiry against him and an Additional District Co -operative Officer after enquiry lodged a First Information Report in Case Crime No. 57 of 2004 under Section 409 I.P.C. against him. Thereafter, charge -sheet was submitted against the applicant under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C.
(2.) THE only arguments at the bar by the Counsel for the applicant has been that the applicant has deposited the entire amount said to have been embezzled by him prior to lodging of the aforesaid First Information Report and he cannot, therefore, be liable for the embezzlement and the delay in depositing the amount was caused due to his illness. It was, therefore, argued that it was a case of a delayed deposit and no charge of embezzlement could be sustained against him. Reliance on this argument was placed by the Counsel for the applicant of the case of Narendra Pratap Narain Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P., 1991 JIC 371 (SC) : AIR 1991 SC 1394 and it was argued on the basis thereof that it has been held in this case that if the amount sought to be embezzled has been deposited prior to investigation, the charge of misappropriation or embezzlement could not be sustained.
(3.) THIS argument seems to have been advanced by the learned Counsel on the basis of the head note given in the report of the case (supra) but the head note does not give a full and correct picture of the statement of law contained in the case.;