JOYMALYA BAGCHI,J. - (1.) Judgement and order dated 21st February, 1987 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Special Court, Nadia in Special Court Case No. 3 of 1986 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year only and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months only has been assailed.
(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that the appellant being a Clerk attached to Krishnagar Court Post Office between 17-02-82 to 06- 05-82 had on 31st March, 1982, 2nd April, 1982, 19th April, 1982 and 3rd May, 1982 received Rs.800/-, Rs.400/-, Rs.950/- and Rs.400/- respectively as deposits in S.B. A/c. Nos. 617344, 617341 and 617251 respectively and had misappropriated the said amounts of money. It was further alleged that although the appellant entered the deposits in the respective pass books and granted receipt to the respective depositors by giving them counterfoil of the respective pay-in-slips after putting his signature and seal of the post office thereon, he did not credit the said amounts in the Government account and did not make relevant entries in the Log book and S.B. Ledger book of the post office. On complaint of depositors, Superintendent of Post Offices, Nadia North Division made investigation in the matter and detected the aforesaid defalcation and accordingly, lodged written complaint at Kotwali Police Station resulting in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 59 dated 22nd May, 1982 under Section 409 IPC. Upon conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the instant case against the appellant under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed under the aforesaid section. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was the specific defence of the appellant that he was absent on the relevant dates and had been falsely implicated in the instant case by the then Sub-Postmaster of the said post office (PW4). In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgement and order dated 21st February, 1987 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
(3.) Mr. Tushar Kanti Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submit that the evidence on record has not established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. He submit that the version of PW2 and PW4 are unreliable as disciplinary proceedings are pending against the said witnesses. He also submit that the learned trial Judge illegally rejected the defence plea that the appellant was on leave on the respective days. He accordingly, prayed for acquittal.;