K.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by Sri Kailash Nath Endley, Temporary Sessions judge, jaunpur, convicting Jalaluddin (Appellant) Under Section 409 IPC and 465. IPC and sentencing him to two years'. RI coupled with a fine of Rs. 100/ - under the first count and in default of payment of fine to RI for one month and sentencing him to one year's RI under the second count coupled with a fine of Rs. 50/ - and in default of payment of fine to further RI for 15 days. All the sentences except the sentences which were passed in default of payment of fine were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: Jalaluddin (Appellant) was a Branch Post Master of Branch Pest Office Narhan, Police Station Kerakat district Jaunpur. Ram Kumar, the husband of Smt. Naujadia sent a Money Order for Rs. 30/ - in the name of his son Saltu Mallah. This Money Order was received at Narhan Post Office by the Appellant. Instead of making the payment of the money order to Saltu the Appellant committed criminal breach of trust of the same and in order to show that the amount was paid to the claimant he forged certain entries in the relevant register. The Appellant is alleged to have put his own thumb impression on the receipt alleging that it was that of Smt. Naujadia. Later on when Ram Kumar returned to his village he enquired from his wife and she told him that the aforesaid money order was not received by her. He made a complaint to the postal authorities. The Inspector of Post Offices made an enquiry and on the basis of his enquiry a case was registered against the Appellant. The police investigated the case and after completing the investigation challenged the Appellant. In the trial court the Appellant was asked to give a specimen of his thumb impression for comparison with the disputed thumb impression. The Appellant refused to do so. The trial court directed the Head Constable attached to his court to forcibly take the thumb impression of the Appellant. As ordered by the trial court, the thumb impression of the Appellant was forcibly taken. It was then sent for comparison to the Finger Print Expert. He reported that the disputed and the specimen thumb impressions were of one and the same person. After trial the Appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Being dissatisfied he has come in appeal to this Court. The Appellant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. He stated that the amount of the money order was paid to Smt, Naujadia.
(3.) IN support of its case the prosecution examined B.P. Roy, Inspector of Post Offices, Smt. Naujadia, Sheo Bhikh and certain other witnesses whose statements are more or less of a formal nature. The Appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence.;