Back
2000 Supreme(All) 124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. K. TRIVEDI, M. C. JAIN
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
RAM CHANDRA SINGH - Respondents
GOVT. CRI. APPEAL 308 Of 1980
Decided On : 01/21/2000
The judgment emphasizes the importance of conclusive evidence in establishing misappropriation and highlights the accused's conduct in reporting the missing properties.
Headnote:
Misappropriation - Criminal Case - Section 409 IPC - [Section 409 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence and concluded that the entrustment of the properties to the accused was proved, but misappropriation was not established. The court emphasized the accused's conduct in reporting the missing properties and highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence of misappropriation. The judgment affirmed the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Head Constable, was in charge of a property storage facility. Properties from several cases were reported missing, leading to charges against the accused. The accused denied misappropriation and reported the missing properties himself.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the entrustment of the properties to the accused was proven, misappropriation was not established. The accused's conduct in reporting the missing properties and the lack of conclusive evidence led to the acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused had misappropriated the missing properties entrusted to him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the accused's conduct in reporting the missing properties and the lack of conclusive evidence of misappropriation, leading to the acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused was dismissed, affirming the judgment and order under appeal. The accused was not required to surrender.
( 1 ) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 17-11-1979 passed by Sri. R. C. Srivastava, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in Criminal Case No. 623 of 1975 (Crime No. 539 of 1973, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah) Whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charged offence under Section 409 IPC.
( 2 ) DRAPED in brevity, the facts are that the accused-respondent Ram Chandra Singh, Head Constable was In-charge of Sadar Malkhana, District Etawah. A report against him and his assistant Constable Ram Sanehi was made on 19-8-1973 by Sir T. D. Sharma, the then Public Prosecutor, Etawah that the case properties of the following seven cases which had been deposited in Sadar Malkhana were not available :1. Case property No 885/72 u/s 25 Arms Act, P. S. Ekdil. 2. Case property No. 807/72 u/s 25 Arms Act, P. S. Bharthana. 3. Case property No. 880/72 u/s25 Arms Act. P. S. Achhalda 4. Case property No. 120/73 u/s 25 Arms Act P. S. Auraiya 5. Case property No. 140/73 u/s 25 Arms Act P. S. Auraiya 6. Case property No. 40/79 u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act Police Station Sahail. 7. Case property No. 677/713/725 of 1971 u/s 394/411ipc , P. S. Kotwali (100 currency note Rs. 100. 00 each total Rs. 10,000. 00- and one revolver 32 bore)
( 3 ) IN due course investigation was taken up by Special investigation Squad, Etawah and ultimately a chargesheet was laid on 30-3-1975 against the accused-respondent Head Constable Ram Chandra Singh.
( 4 ) THE defence of the accused-respondent may also be taken note of. He admitted that he was in-charge as Malkhana Moharrir of Sadar Malkhana, Etawah during the years 1972 and 1973 having obtained charge from Head Constable Rama Saran Singh. He obtained the custody of the properties Nos. 885 72 120/73, 140/73 and 677/713/725 of 1971. According to him, the two properties numbering 807/72 and 880/72 were obtained by Constable Shravan Kumar. He also contended that he had reported the matter to S. P. Etawah about the loss of the properties from Malkhana and Sri T. D. Sharma, Public Prosecutor, being officer-in-charge of Malkhana, in order to shift his responsibility and out of hostility towards him got him implicated and chargesheeted by the local police. He denied misappropriation conversion of the properties in question to his own use. From July 1972 to 15/03/1973 separate locks were put on inner and outer doors of Malkhana out of which the key of the lock of the outer door used to remain in his possession and that of the inner door lock was kept by the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor. After the closure of the Malkhana and before its opening the two keys use to remain with the Assistant Public Prosecutor and none of the keys remained with him while the Malkhana was closed.
( 5 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined the Public Prosecutor Sri T. D. Sharma PW 1. Mukhtiyar Ahmad PW 2, Dy. S. P. Sri V. S. Tyagi PW 3, Ram Sharan Singh PW 4, Retd. Head Constable Kushal Pal Singh PW 5 APR Anand Swarup Sharma PW 6, Constable Ram Sanehi PW 7 and the then APO Sri K. P. Singh PW 8. S. I. Shishu Pal Singh DW 1 and Constable Clerk Yadu Nath Singh DW 2 were examined by the accused-respondent also in defence.
( 6 ) ON consideration of the material and evidence on record, the learned Court below held that though the entrustment of the property in question to the accused-respondent was proved, but misappropriation of the same by him was not established. The accused-respondent was accordingly acquitted. The State of U. P. being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal has now come in appeal before this Court.
( 7 ) WE have heard learned A. G. A. in support of appeal and Sir Vinay Saran from the side of accused-respondent in opposition of the same. The argument of the learned A. G. A is that entrustment of the properties in question to the accused-respondent as well as misappropriation of the same by him was fully established by the evidence ad
