H.N.Kapoor - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Shiv Raksha Misra against the order and judgment dated 23-9- 1978 of VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 379 of 1972 convicting him under Section 408 IPC and sentencing him to three years, RI under that section and further convicting him under Section 477-A IPC and sentencing him to one year's RI; both the sentences have been made to run concurrently.
(2.) THE appeal was filed from jail, Sri H. M. Srivastava, who was engaged subsequently, has argued this- case. THE appellant is still in jail. THE prosecution case as stated in the FIR lodged on 23-12-1970 by Chandan Singh (PW 1) and by the prosecution evidence briefly stated is as follows. THE accused was employed as Incharge Dhulai Vibhag, Central Gandhi Ashram Store, Meerut. He was the incharge of that section. He made defalcation in the account book and by making wrong entries he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 10,098/- in collusion with the dhobis. THE audit was done only for the current year at that time (for the period from 1-4-1970 to 30-11-1970). As a result of this audit it was discovered that several false entries were made in the account's book and the above mentioned amount has been misappropriated. A list of such wrong entries has also been annexed. Various items were given as to how Gandhi Ashram had suffered the loss. A case under Section 408/467 IPC was registered against the appellant on the basis of this FIR by SC Madan Lal (PW 5). THE investigation of this case was made by SI SN Misra (PW 6) who submitted the chargesheet against the appellant after completing trie investigation. THE accused was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that it was possible to try tine appellant in respect of the entire embezzled amount in one trial but the appellant could be tried for making three false entries only in one trial in one year. The total false entries alleged to have been made were 119. The trial was, therefore, spited into 40 separate trials. The present trial was in respect of three items pertaining to the wrong entries made in respect of Saghir Dhotoi, Allah Mehar Dhobi and Gajju Dhobi. The appellant admitted most of the entries to be in his hand. In reply to question No. 7, he stated that ail the entries in the accounts books Ex. 2 were in his hand. Only alterations and cuttings were not in his hand. In respect of other question he made a general answer that the entries were mostly in his hand. He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.
(3.) THE prosecution has examined Chandan Singh (PW 1) who was the Manager of Gandhi Ashram, Ayodhya Pd. Dwivedi (PW 2) auditor and Ram Avadh Yadav (PW 3) Secretary. Vijai Singh (PW 4) co-employee of the accused in the same dhulai section, was also examined. According to the prosecution witnesses the appellant was the incharge of dhulai section. THE offence came to light when Shagir Dhobi reported to the Manager Chandan Singh (PW 1) that 100 pieces of cloth w?re wrongly shown in his name as having been given for washing whereas these pieces of cloth had not been given. He made this complaint in November, 1970. Chandan Singh then got the audit done and according to the report of the auditor Ayodhya Pd. Dwivedi (PW2) it was found that several wrong entries have been made by the appellant as a result of which an amount of R.s. 10,098/- was wrongly drawn and the same had been embezzled. He then lodged the FIR mentioned above. The modus operandi of the appellant was that he had actually received less number of pieces of cloth from Dhobis but had shown larger number so that the larger amount may be drawn. These wrong entries were proved from Dhobi Khata Register (Ex. V) which was maintained by the appellant. These are Ex. Ka. 13, Ka. 17, Ka. 36, Ka. 42, Ka. 45, Ka. 54, Ka. . 9, Ka. 64, Ka. 66, Ka. 70, Ka. 77, Ka. 86, Ka. 107 and Ka. 112. Vijai Singh (PW 4) has given the evidence that he also used to count all pieces of cloth given to the dhobis and used to maintain the entries in his register and the same were then counted again and the accused too used to make entries in this register with regard to those pieces. After comparing the entries made by Vijai Singh in his register material Exs. 6 and 3, these discrepancies have been found.;