The evidence of a complainant alone can be sufficient to establish an offence, and documents that are either admissions by the accused or statements that corroborate the complainant's testimony are admissible in evidence.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - S. 408 I. P. C. - Proof of misappropriation of money by employee - Admissibility of documents - Confession - Corroboration.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, an employee of the complainant, was accused of misappropriating money by filling in blank cheques and withdrawing money from the bank. The trial court convicted the respondent, but the High Court acquitted him, holding that the evidence of the complainant alone was not sufficient and that certain documents were inadmissible.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the evidence of the complainant was sufficient to establish the offence, and that the documents were admissible in evidence. The Court found that the respondent had admitted to misappropriating the money, and that this was corroborated by the documents.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the complainant alone was sufficient to establish the offence. 2. Whether the documents were admissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The evidence of the complainant was sufficient to establish the offence, as he was a reliable witness who had seen the respondent write and sign the cheques. 2. The documents were admissible in evidence, as they were either admissions by the respondent or statements that corroborated the complainant's testimony.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the trial court was restored.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, by special leave, is by the State of Gujarat against the order of the Gujarat High Court acquitting the respondent of the offence under S. 408 I. P C

2. The respondent was an employee of Nalinkant. P. W. 1, the sole proprietor of Arora Trading Company, in l959. He was in service from 1954. It was his duty to withdraw moneys from the Union Bank of India Ltd., with which Nalinkant had an account. Nalinkant used to leave his cheque book with a few blank signed cheques with the respondent when he had to go out of Ahmedabad, the place of business. The prosecution case is that the respondent took advantage of such blank cheques, filled them up and cashed them from the Bank and misappropriated the amounts so received. He made no entries about such receipts in the petty cash book maintained by the firm.

3. Nalinkant was the only witness to prove that the relevant entries in the cheques and the signatures at the back of the cheques in token of having received the amounts from the Bank were of the respondent Corroboration of his statement was sought from four documents two of which were documents said to have been handed over to Nalinkant by the respondent when the respondent s conduct of committing breach of trust with respect to certain items was found out on December 14, 1959. The other two documents were the respondent s statement as an accused in a criminal case and an application given by the respondent in another criminal case.

4. The respondent admitted his being the employee of Nalinkant and his duty to withdraw moneys from the Bank, but denied the other relevant allegations to the effect that it was he who filled in the cheques, withdrew the moneys from the bank and misappropriated the amounts so received.

5. The trial Court accepted the testimony of Nalinkant and convicted the respondent of the offence under S. 408 I. P. C. for committing breach of trust with respect to the amounts withdrawn in respect of three cheques. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the respondent. The learned Judge considered it unsafe to rely on the evidence of the complainant alone and held the various documents to be inadmissible in evidence.

6. Before dealing with the contentions for the parties in this Court, we may mention that the State of Gujarat has instituted five other criminal appeals Nos. 44 to 48 of 1964 against this very respondent against his acquittal by the High Court in five other cases in regard to his committing breach of trust with respect to various other amounts withdrawn by him from the Bank by filling in blank cheques which had been left duly signed with him by Nalinkant. The High Court s order of acquittal in those cases is based on the same grounds on which the order of acquittal under appeal is based. Consequently, learned counsel for the State and the respondent made their submissions with reference to the judgment of the High Court in this appeal.

7. Mr. Chari, for the State, has argued that the High Court was in error in holding the four documents to be inadmissible in evidence and in expressing the view that it was for the prosecution to rely upon the evidence of an hand-writing expert on the question of the hand-writing of a person, as the band-writing of a person could be proved by other means.

8. In the present case it was proved by the complainant that the various entries in the cheques and the signatures on the reverse of the various cheques were in the hand-writing of the respondent. The complainant was competent to speak about them as the respondent had been his employee for a number of years. The complainant had many an occasion to see him write and sign.

9. No reason has been given by the learned Judge for differing with the view of the trial Court that the complainant was a reliable witness. The mere expression it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of the complainant alone in a case like this is not a sufficient ground for differing from the trial Court in its opinion abo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document