Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, Utpalendu Bikas Saha, JJ.
Sri Kajal Dey - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A. 5 of 2006Decided On : 12-06-2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.C. Kabir, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Chakraborty, Special P.P. and Mr. P. Saha Advocate.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime charged.
Headnote:
The accused appellant was convicted under Sections 468/471/477-A/409 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment to suffer further S.I. for six months for the offence committed under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further S.I. for three months for the offence committed under Section 471 IPC and further sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years for the offence committed under Section 477-A of the IPC, but no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 468 IPC as in order to commit offence under Section 471 IPC, one is to commit offence under Section 468 IPC. The accused appellant while working as LDC and UDC in the Consumer Services Sub-division No. 1, Banamalipur was in-charge Head Cashier in the year 1992 and 1993 and he was entrusted with the cash amount of Rs. 11,13,355.95p as a public servant. On 23.12.1992, while he was discharging his duty as Head cashier prepared one challan bearing No. 67 dated 21.12.1992 (Ext. 25 series) for Rs. 73,196.65 P and thereafter obtained signature of the Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO), (P.W. 1) for depositing the same in the Govt. head at State Bank of India, TLA House Branch, Agartala and in the said capacity, he also prepared as such another challan No. 36 dated 19.1.93 for the amount of Rs. 73,219.10 P. He prepared those documents in a manner with the receipt seal of the said Bank as if the amount shown in those challans were actually deposited in the Bank, but the facts remained that he did not deposit the said amount. Thus, he had forged the aforesaid two challans being challan No. 67 and 36 knowing fully well that those would be used for the purpose of cheating the Govt. of Tripura, Department of Electricity and also used the said forged documents as genuine knowing or having reason to belief that those documents were forged documents.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellant was convicted under Sections 468/471/477-A/409 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment to suffer further S.I. for six months for the offence committed under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further S.I. for three months for the offence committed under Section 471 IPC and further sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years for the offence committed under Section 477-A of the IPC, but no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 468 IPC as in order to commit offence under Section 471 IPC, one is to commit offence under Section 468 IPC. The accused appellant while working as LDC and UDC in the Consumer Services Sub-division No. 1, Banamalipur was in-charge Head Cashier in the year 1992 and 1993 and he was entrusted with the cash amount of Rs. 11,13,355.95p as a public servant. On 23.12.1992, while he was discharging his duty as Head cashier prepared one challan bearing No. 67 dated 21.12.1992 (Ext. 25 series) for Rs. 73,196.65 P and thereafter obtained signature of the Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO), (P.W. 1) for depositing the same in the Govt. head at State Bank of India, TLA House Branch, Agartala and in the said capacity, he also prepared as such another challan No. 36 dated 19.1.93 for the amount of Rs. 73,219.10 P. He prepared those documents in a manner with the receipt seal of the said Bank as if the amount shown in those challans were actually deposited in the Bank, but the facts remained that he did not deposit the said amount. Thus, he had forged the aforesaid two challans being challan No. 67 and 36 knowing fully well that those would be used for the purpose of cheating the Govt. of Tripura, Department of Electricity and also used the said forged documents as genuine knowing or having reason to belief that those documents were forged documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant had forged the challans and falsified the accounts for misappropriation of money as alleged. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused appellant had misappropriated any of the properties entrusted with him. The court further found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused appellant had altered or falsified the challans, the remittance register, cash book etc. with a willful intention to defraud.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant had forged the challans and falsified the accounts for misappropriation of money as alleged? 2. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused appellant had misappropriated any of the properties entrusted with him? 3. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused appellant had altered or falsified the challans, the remittance register, cash book etc. with a willful intention to defraud?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant had forged the challans and falsified the accounts for misappropriation of money as alleged. The court noted that the accused appellant was not the only person who had access to the challans and the cash book, and that there was no evidence that the accused appellant had benefited from the alleged forgery. 2. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused appellant had misappropriated any of the properties entrusted with him. The court noted that there was no evidence that the accused appellant had ever had possession of the money that was allegedly misappropriated. 3. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused appellant had altered or falsified the challans, the remittance register, cash book etc. with a willful intention to defraud. The court noted that there was no evidence that the accused appellant had benefited from the alleged alteration or falsification.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused appellant of all charges.
JUDGMENT
Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment dated 30.12.2005 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in GR case No. 658 of 1993 whereby and whereunder, the accused appellant was convicted under Sections 468/471/477-A/409 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment to suffer further S.I. for six months for the offence committed under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further S.I. for three months for the offence committed under Section 471 IPC and further sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years for the offence committed under Section 477-A of the IPC, but no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 468 IPC as in order to commit offence under Section 471 IPC, one is to commit offence under Section 468 IPC.
2. We have heard Mr. Kabir, learned counsel for the accused appellant and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned special P.P. for the respondent-State.
3. The accused appellant while working as LDC and UDC in the Consumer Services Sub-division No. 1, Banamalipur was in-charge Head Cashier in the year 1992 and 1993 and he was entrusted with the cash amount of Rs. 11,13,355.95p as a public servant. On 23.12.1992, while he was discharging his duty as Head cashier prepared one challan bearing No. 67 dated 21.12.1992 (Ext. 25 series) for Rs. 73,196.65 P and thereafter obtained signature of the Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO), (P.W. 1) for depositing the same in the Govt. head at State Bank of India, TLA House Branch, Agartala and in the said capacity, he also prepared as such another challan No. 36 dated 19.1.93 for the amount of Rs. 73,219.10 P. He prepared those documents in a manner with the receipt seal of the said Bank as if the amount shown in those challans were actually deposited in the Bank, but the facts remained that he did not deposit the said amount. Thus, he had forged the aforesaid two challans being challan No. 67 and 36 knowing fully well that those would be used for the purpose of cheating the Govt. of Tripura, Department of Electricity and also used the said forged documents as genuine knowing or having reason to belief that those documents were forged documents.
4. While the accused appellant serving as Head Cashier in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Consumer Services Sub-Division No. 1, Banamalipur, Agartala, P.W. 3 Smt. Bina Chakraborty, P.W. 4 Ranjita Dey, P.W. 5 Haripada Adhikari, Sri Swapan Acherjee, Sri Haran Aich, Sri Biswajit Roy and one Anita Roy were also working there as LDC who used to collect revenue in different counters during that period through printed receipt books and after collection of the whole day, the entire amount so collected used to deposit to the aforesaid Bina Chakraborty. She after being satisfied with regard to the used receipts used to hand over the amount so collected to the accused appellant as he was discharging his duties as Head Cashier and then the accused appellant used to keep the revenue in the chest of the office and later, on the convenient days, the revenue was deposited in the Bank through challan by him. Though the petitioner was promoted from LDC to UDC and transferred from the aforesaid office to Udaipur in the office of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Division No. 4, but the said transfer order was modified and he was kept attached in the same office i.e. in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Electrical, Consumer Services Sub-Division No 1, Banamalipur, Agartala.
5. As a procedure, prior to deposit of the amount in the Bank, the accused appellant as a Head Cashier used to prepare the challan and thereafter he obtained signature of the concerned D.D.O. in the said challan and then he used to deposit the said amount in the State Bank of India, TLA House Branch. For dealing with the same, he as
