ORDER This is a revision on behalf of one Samresh Singh, who has been convicted under S.408, Penal Code, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default two months rigorous imprisonment. This case has had a chequered career. The accused, along with his father, Kumar Singh, was prosecuted under S.408, Indian Penal Code. The accused was charged with having embezzled Rs.1,864/2/9 in his capacity as an agent of Chandra Bir Singh. This amount is alieged to have been embezzled between 20-3-1949 and 10-6-1949. The father of the accused Kumar Singh was also alleged to have embezzled a sum of Rs.1,500/- and he was also charged, along with the accused in this case, for having committed a breach of trust in respect of that amount and the accused was charged with having abetted his father in the commission of the said offence.

2. The learned trial Court acquitted the accuseds father in respect of the offence for which he was charged as well as the accused-applicant for abetment of the same. As regards the amount of Rs.1,864/2/9 in respect of which the applicant was charged under S.409, (sic.) the Magistrate did not find that the entire amount was embezzled and he acquitted the accused in respect of some of the items. He, however, convicted the accused for having embezzled a sum of about Rs.900/-which formed the price of the sugar-cane supplied and sold by the accused on behalf of his master to the sugar mills. He also convicted the accused in respect of certain amounts which he had realised from tenants of some of the villages.

3. The accused filed an appeal against the said judgment before the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich, who allowed the appeal of the accused and acquitted him. The complainant filed a revision against the said order of acquittal which came before a learned Judge of this Court, who remanded the case to the lower Court and directed that the appeal should be reheard. In accordance with the said order appeal was again heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich, who dismissed the appeal of the accused upheld his conviction and maintained the sentence passed on him by the trial Court. The accused has now filed a revision in this Court. After hearing it at length, I have come to the conclusion that this revision must be allowed.

4. So far as the accused is concerned, the charge of embezzlement against him relates to two items; the first item consists of the price he realised for the sale of sugar-cane at the sugar mills and the second amount consists of various amounts which the accused is alleged to have realised from the tenants of the villages owned by his master. So far as the first amount is concerned, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant stated before me that after a scrutiny into the evidence of the case all that he could say was that the amount came approximately to a figure of Rs.900/- out of which the complainant had adduced evidence to prove that Rs.884/- was embezzled by the accused. The practice would appear to be that the accused used to take sugar-cane on behalf of his master to the sugar mills and he used to be given parchas or purzis indicating the price of the sugarcane. It would appear that the accused used to get these receipts and hand them over to one Ram Kumar, who was a servant of a brother of the complainant and put his signature on those purzis to indicate that he had received the amounts shown in the purzis and was responsible for the same. These purzis formed the most important pieces of evidence for proving that the amounts had been realised by the accused and the payments acknowledged by him. One would think that the complainant would have filed these purzis either with the complaint or in proceedings under S.202, Criminal P.C. No definite stage for ill-ing evidence is, however prescribed by Criminal P.C, and it was certainly open to the com-plainant to summon it at a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document