1992 Supreme(SC) 276

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh and N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.
State of A.P.-Appellant
versus
Y. Basavadevudu & Anr. –Respondents Crl.
Appeal Nos. 384-385 of 1982
Decided on 26-1-1992

IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against acquittal, order of acquittal is liable to be set aside when the High Court totally misdirected itself and did not go deep into the matter, nor analyzed the clinching oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and gave the benefit of doubt to the accused persons in a superficial manner.

Headnote:Appeal Against Acquittal- Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 409, 467,471 and 477-A - Prosecution for offences under - Case of embezzlement of public funds to the tune of Rs. 1,22,500/- -A1, A2 and P.W. 18 allegedly together made falsification of the accounts by writing false entries in the relevant registers as of some payments were made to the fictitious persons - High Court recording order of acquittal on giving them benefit of doubt – High Court did not analyze the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and gave benefit of doubt to the accused persons in a superficial manner- High Court did not deal with the detailed reasons given by the trial Judge and ignored the admitted facts and circumstances of the case - High Court went wrong in throwing the burden on the prosecution to prove that entries containing the signatures and thumb impression of the payee were made by the accused persons - Prosecution as discharged its burden of establishing the charges leveled against the accused persons beyond any manner of doubt - Findings and conclusions drawn by the trial court recording conviction are upheld. (Cross Ref.: Evidence Act, 1872-Sedion 106).

       Held: Admitted facts of the case are that A.1 was working as S.T.O., A.2 as shroff and P.W. 18 the approver as Upper Division Accountant-cum-Double Lock Officer in the Sub-Treasury Venkatapuram at the relevant time. The Government vide order dated 14-6-1973 ordered for the conversion of the non-banking Sub-Treasury into a Banking Sub-Treasury by handing over cash business to the local State Bank of Hyderabad on 18-6-1973. This was delayed on the report of the accused A.1 to the effect that the cash chest was not working as the key was stuck-up in the chest and it was not possible to do so on the above date. The Government, therefore, issued another order and the conversion process materialized on 17-7-1973. The accused A.1 and A.2 handed over the cash balance of R.B.I. chest as per the records on 17-7-1973. After sometime the Accountant General of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad as well as the Reserve Bank of India Office at Madras detected that 7 fake demand drafts alleged to have-been issued by the Reserve Bank of India were shown to have been en-cashed and paid on 16-7-1973 and 17-7-1973 in the records of the Sub-Treasury. (Para 7)

       Further held: It is clearly proved on record that the real and genuine demand drafts were Exhibits P.82 to P.88 issued from the Reserve Bank of India Madras and the same were not drawn to be payable at Sub-Treasury Venkatapuram or at any other Sub-Treasury situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The amounts, the dates and the payees there entirely different from those demand drafts which have been entered and shown en-cashed from the Sub-Treasury at Venkatapuram. The stand taken by the accused persons is that the payments or encashment of the demand drafts and the entries found in Exhibits P.2, P.3, P.5, P.6, P.8 and P.9 were all correct and it may be that fake or spurious or bogus Reserve Bank of India demand drafts might have been presented by the payees. In such circumstances it was necessary for the accused persons to disclose the identity of the person who identified the payees at the time of encashment of the fake drafts. It is worthwhile to note that admittedly no advice for payment of the demand drafts had been received before the encashment of the demand drafts and even the alleged demand drafts after payment are not available on the record and the accused persons took a false stand that they sent the paid drafts to the office of the Accountant General. It is no longer in dispute that the amount of Rs. 1,22,500/- was withdrawn by the accused persons and the same has been shown to have been paid against fake and spurious demand drafts to unknown persons.

       We have considered the reasoning given by the High Court and we are clearly of the view that the High Court went wrong in throwing the burden on the prosecution to prove that the entries in column 5 of Exhibits P.8 and P.9 containing the signatures or thumb impression of the payees was made by the accused persons. In our view in the facts and circumstances of this case, it was totally wrong to place such burden on the prosecution. The prosecution has discharged its burden by leading un-impeaching oral and documentary evidence that no demand drafts were issued from the R.B.I., Madras against which payments have been shown on 16th and 17th July, 1973 in the record of Sub Treasury Venkatapuam and the names of the payees were also of unknown and unidentified persons. The entries in column 1 to 4 of Exhibits P.8 and P.9 are admitted to be correct by the accused persons. These entries showing the names of the payees and the amount are proved to be false and incorrect beyond any shadow of doubt In this background, it was no longer the duty of the prosecution to show as to who made the entries in column 5 of Exhibits P.8 and P.9. (Paras 10 & 11)