Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 196
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge
State of H.P. …Appellant.
VERSUS
Ram Chand ….Respondent.
Cr. Appeal No. 152/2001
Decided on: January 5, 2010
For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG
For the respondent:Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the entrustment of funds and the accused's misappropriation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Acquittal - Sections 408, 409, 467, 471, 420 IPC - The court analyzed the prosecution witnesses and materials on record to determine the legality of the impugned judgment. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's liability for the offenses and the entrustment of money, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused misappropriated public funds entrusted to him for the construction of a primary school. The prosecution presented witnesses and materials to support their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's liability for the offenses and the entrustment of money. The court concluded that there was no scope for interference in the impugned judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entrustment of money, misappropriation, and the accused's liability for the alleged offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence proving the entrustment of money to the accused and his misappropriation of the funds. The court also considered the acknowledgment of wages by the laborers as evidence against the prosecution's claims.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the bail bonds furnished by the accused were discharged.
R.B.Misra, J.
The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 7.8.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, HP. thereby acquitting the respondent / accused for the offence under Sections 408, 409, 467, 471, 420 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that Additional Deputy Commissioner, Una filed a complaint Ex PW-1/A along with documents Ex PW-1/B to K to the Superintendent of Police, Una, District Una, HP and accordingly the same was forwarded to the Police Station and case was registered against the Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? respondent/accused for the aforesaid offence. After investigation, case was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 18 prosecution witnesses, whereas, through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused/ respondent denied the prosecution case.
4. In order to see the legality of the impugned judgment we have to go through the prosecution witnesses and materials on record.
5. (PW-1) M.L. Sharma, Joint Secretary, Welfare has stated that at the relevant time in the year 1991, he was posted as ADM, Una, on 27.12.90 wrote letter (Ex PW-1/A supporting with other supporting documents), to S.P. Una about the embezzlement committed by the accused/respondent for the purpose of enquiry, whereas, the letter written by accused to D.C. Una is Ex PW-1/D and Ex PW-1/C is the inquiry report prepared by Project Officer. Letter written by PW-1 to the Project Officer is Ex PW-1/E and certificate which was given by the accused is Ex PW-1/F and the detailed report of the amount which was invested is Ex PW1/G and receipt is Ex PW-1/H. However, PW-1 M.L. Sharma has not conducted inquiry as has been admitted in the cross examination.
6. (PW-2) Kehar Singh has deposed that he was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Dharamshala Mahanta from 1972 to 1990 and in the year 1989-90 accused was Up Pradhan of that Panchayat. As per the testimony of PW-2, he came to know from the villagers that the amount of Rs. 8000/- was entrusted to the accused/respondent by the D.C.Una and amount was received by the accused/respondent. After some time, PW-2 received letter from Deputy Commissioner, Una inquiring about the expenditure of Rs. 8000/-. Accordingly, he informed that there is nothing mentioned in the register about such amount. As per testimony of PW-2, accused/respondent misutilized the said amount, however, muster roll was also prepared by the accused/respondent. No such record was made available to that effect in the Panchaya. The Project Officer has also made enquiry about it. PW-2 has, however, stated in the cross examination that he is not aware about the receipt of such amount.
7. (PW-3) Parveen Kumar has stated that during his deployment as mason in the year 1989 for the construction of Primary School at Dharamshala Mahanta, he had received 350/- as wages for the work done. PW-3, as such, was declared hostile. However, PW-3 has further stated that at Sr. No.3 of muster roll, 10 attendance were recorded in front of him. He denied the signatures upon muster roll Ex PW-3/A made in English. (PW-4) Urmila Gian Bharti has stated that she was posted as Project Officer from 1988 to 1993 and was entrusted to make inquiry about the construction of Primary School, Dharamshala, Mahanta and on inquiry, she came to know that building of the school was constructed through ‘Shramdan’. As per testimony of this witness, the amount was received by Pradhan from District Office without any receipt in Panchayat register and in cash book there is no such entry and record of the aforesaid amount. PW-4 has, however, submitted his report Ex PW-1/C to the ADM Una. However, nothing is emanating positive from the testimony of PW-4.
8. (PW-5) Ram Pal h
