Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.
Pankaj Kumar Mallick @ Pankaj Mallick - Appellant
Vs.
State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. No. 160 of 1987
Decided on : 16-06-2016
For the Appellant : Ms. Meenal Sinha, Mr. Tushar Kanti Mukherjee.
For the State : Mr. Anand Kesari.
The evidence of a superior officer under whom a person is employed is competent to prove the handwriting of that person, and it is not necessary in all cases to obtain an opinion of a handwriting expert.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 409 IPC - MISAPPROPRIATION OF MONEY BY POST OFFICE CLERK - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - HANDWRITING - EXPERT OPINION - NECESSITY - SENTENCE - MODIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a clerk at a post office, was convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for misappropriating money received from depositors. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt and that the trial court erred in not obtaining an expert opinion on his handwriting.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, including the testimony of official witnesses, depositors, and the identification of the appellant by one of the depositors, was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that it was not necessary to obtain an expert opinion on the appellant's handwriting as the superior officer under whom the appellant was employed was a competent witness to prove his handwriting.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the trial court erred in not obtaining an expert opinion on the appellant's handwriting?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, including the testimony of official witnesses, depositors, and the identification of the appellant by one of the depositors, was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2. It was not necessary to obtain an expert opinion on the appellant's handwriting as the superior officer under whom the appellant was employed was a competent witness to prove his handwriting.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and modified the sentence imposed on the appellant, directing that he shall suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone and shall pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.
1. Judgment 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 judgment and order dated 21st February, 1987 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
3. Mr. Tushar Kanti Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence on record has not established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the version of PW2 and PW4 are unreliable as disciplinary proceedings are pending against the said witnesses. He also submitted 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.
4. Ms. Meenal Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae, supported the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that no expert opinion as to the handwriting of the appellant was adduced in the case to probabilise that he has received the alleged defalcated sums of money.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Anand Kesari, learned advocate appearing for the State, submitted that apart from raising the alibi, no cogent material was adduced to probabilise such defence. He also submitted that consistent evidence has come on record that the appellant as the counter and ledger clerk had received the said sums of money and affixed his signature and seal on the counterfoils of the depositors and thereafter, misappropriated the said sums of money and intentionally did not make necessary entries in the Log book and S.B. Ledger book of the post office to evade detection. It is further argued that the signature and the handwriting of the appellant including those in the attendance register were duly proved in the instant case. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. PW1 was a mail peon who was posted at Krishnagar Court Post Office. He deposed that he knew the accused who was working as a Savings Bank Clerk in the post office.
7. PW2 was posted in the said post office and was working at
