The acknowledgment of debt by the appellant through the entries in Ext.13 and Ext.14, along with the lack of rebuttal, constituted sufficient proof of the debt acknowledged by the appellant.

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant and Mr. B.D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - plaintiffs.

2. By filing this appeal, the appellant-defendant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Guwahati in Money Suit No. 69/1994.

3. In brief, the case of the respondents plaintiffs in the plaint is that the respondent No.2, namely, Monica Goswami is doing business as the proprietress of the respondent No.1 firm under the name and style of M/s. M.G. Enterprises. At the relevant time, the respondents were doing business as Carrying & Forwarding Agent of Golden Tobacco Mfg. Co. In course of business, they had engaged the appellant, namely, Rupak Sarma as Manager of the Respondent No.1 firm, who was entrusted with the responsibility of managing the day-to-day affairs of the business, including responsibility to collect money and deposit the same in the bank account and maintain the daily accounts. It was pleaded that the respondent No.2 did not look into such day-to-day matters, however, her husband, namely, Sanjib Goswami looked into these matters occasionally. It was projected that on 06.02.1992, the appellant had lodged an FIR that while he was returning after collecting a sum of Rs.3,69,789/- from parties, he was intercepted on road by some miscreants, who snatched away his bag. An ejahar was lodged with the police and Panbazar P.S. Case No. 33/1992 under Section 393 IPC was registered. In course of police investigation, the police recovered the said sum of Rs.3,69,789/- was recovered from the chamber of the appellant in the office of the respondent No.1 on being led by the appellant to the said recovery and the money was seized. The police then arrested the appellant for lodging a false case. The manufacturer company was informed and on scrutiny of accounts done on 06.02.1992 and 07.02.1992, for the period from 01.01.1992 to 05.02.1992, actual cash balance should have been Rs.7,29,160.14, which though found collected by the appellant from various parties, was not deposited by him in the bank account of the manufacturer. Accordingly, on reconciliation, a statement was prepared by the representative of the manufacturer on 29.03.1992, which was signed by the appellant upon verification, and taking into account various entries, a sum of Rs.3,63,589/- was found payable by the appellant to the respondents. Hence, the suit was filed against the appellant for recovery of the said amount with interest @ 18% amounting to Rs.8,75,137.71 with pendente lite interest @ 18% and future interest, cost, etc.

4. The appellant filed his written statement and denied the allegations about his exclusive and overall responsibility. It was denied that respondent No.2 did not look into day-to-day affairs of business and it was asserted that at the end of day, the respondent No.2 and/or her husband regularly looked into the affairs of the business and took charge of all money lying as cash in hand and no money was taken away by the appellant and that such money remained either in the business establishment or in the safe of respondent No.2 and/or her husband and keys remained with the respondent No.2. (admitted para-6 about making entry in books of accounts). It was projected that as per his FIR with the police, he had stated that out of the collected money, a sum of Rs.40,000/- kept in bag was robbed. It was also stated that some money recovered from the office drawer of the respondent cannot be said to be money recovered from the appellant as he had no domain over the money as the key to the said drawer was produced by the respondent No.2. It was denied that the appellant had misappropriated the money or committed breach of trust. It was stated that the sum of Rs.7,29,160.14, shown as cash balance was taken charge of by the respondent No.2 and the amount was lying with her and not with the appellant. T