Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 10.03.1987 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Special Court, Nadia, Krishnanagar in Special Case No. 5 of 1986 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and directing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months more.
(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is that the appellant was employed as a savings bank clerk in Krishnanagar Court Post Office from 17.02.1982 to 08.05.1982 and in such capacity was entrusted with Rs.500/- relating to S.B. A/c. No. 616562 on 23.04.1982 and Rs.1000/- relating to S.B. A/c. No. 617220 on 26.04.1982 and upon being so entrusted with the aforesaid monies failed and/or neglected to deposit the cash in Government account and misappropriated the said money. The matter came to the notice of M.N. Sangma, P.W. 1, who after verification of facts lodged a complaint at Kotwali Police Station resulting in the registration of Kotwali Police Station case no. 88 dated 29.05.1982 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was filed under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was the specific defence of the appellant that he was on casual leave on both the dates i.e. 23.04.1982 and 26.04.1982 and in his absence, M.N. Sangma, P.W. 1, Gita Biswas, P.W. 4 and Kumud Ranjan Biswas, P.W. 6 who were employed in the said post office, in collusion with one another, received the said sum of money and misappropriated it. The appellant, however, chose not to lead any defence witness in support of such defence. In conclusion of trial, learned Trial Judge by judgement and order dated 10.03.1987 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution witnesses are biased and motivated and the said witnesses particularly P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6 have sought to implicate the appellant in order to cover up their own mischief. It is submitted that P.W 1 had been compulsorily retired and P.W 4 had been put under suspension and, therefore, their evidence ought not to be relied upon against the appellant. It is also submitted that none of the witnesses have spoken of his presence at the post office on the aforesaid dates and, therefore, he ought to be acquitted from the charge levelled against him. It is also submitted that the handwriting expert had not given any conclusive opinion implicating him in the instant case.;