Applicant,Conviction,Sentence
Gannulal Dewangan,"Under Section 409 read with
Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
,"Under Section 465 read with
Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
,"Under Section 467 read with
Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
,"Under Section 468 read with
Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
,"Under Section 471 read with
Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
,"Under Section 420 read with
Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
Arun Kumar,"Under Section 409 of the Indian
Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
,"Under Section 465 of the Indian
Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
,"Under Section 467 of the Indian
Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
,"Under Section 468 of the Indian
Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
,"Under Section 471 of the Indian
Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
,"Under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation
Gannulal Dewangan was also working as Assistant Grade-III in the same office and his duty was to maintain computerised ledgers. As per the,,
prosecution story, a forged electricity bill (Article 60) for Rs.11,718/- was allegedly generated by the Applicants in the name a consumer Baliram",,
(died) in which Applicant Gannulal Dewangan had written name of Baliram in his own handwriting. It is further alleged that Applicant Arun Kumar,,
collected the whole amount of Rs.11,718/- from Baliram and against the collection issued a counter slip (Article 4) which was only for a sum of",,
Rs.24/-. At Serial No.35 of register, namely, Classified Abstract of Collection (CAC), Applicant Arun Kumar made entry of collection of Rs.24/- only.",,
On 24.6.1996, Tarachand, son of Baliram, went to Junior Engineer Atmaram Bunker (PW2) and submitted before him the forged electricity bill and",,
counter slip and made a request for inquiry. An inquiry was conducted by Executive Engineer. After inquiry, the Executive Engineer found both the",,
Applicants and Auditor Rajesh Singh (co- accused) guilty. The Executive Engineer also gave a notice to the Applicants and Rajesh Singh to deposit,,
the embezzled amount of Rs.11,718/-. Each of them deposited a sum of Rs.3,900/- on 25.6.1996. Thereafter, Junior Engineer Atmaram Bunker",,
(PW2) submitted a written report (Ex.P3) in police station on the basis of which the offence was registered and during the course of investigation,",,
relevant documents were seized. The seized documents were sent to the handwriting expert for examination. Opinion of the handwriting expert is,,
Ex.P6 and the reason for the opinion is Ex.P7. As opined by the expert, in the electricity bill (Article 60), name of Baliram was manually written by",,
Applicant Gannulal Dewangan and the entries were made in the counter slip (Article 4) and in the CAC register (Article 5) by Applicant Arun,,
Kumar. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.",,
4. After trial, the Trial Court acquitted co-accused Rajesh Singh of all the charges framed against him, but convicted both the Applicants for offence",,
punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them with rigorous imprisonment for",,
3 years, 1 year, 3 years, 3 years, 1 year, 3 years and 1 year, respectively and with fine. Against the judgment of the Trial Court, the present Applicants",,
preferred separate appeals before the Court of Session. Vide the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2013, the Appellate Court convicted and sentenced",,
both the Applicants as mentioned in the second paragraph of this order. Hence, these revisions by the Applicants.",,
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Applicants submitted that without there being any evidence on record, the Courts below have",,
wrongly convicted the Applicants. It was further submitted that both Tarachand, son of consumer Baliram and Baliram were not examined before the",,
Trial Court by the prosecution. Therefore, the amount of Rs.11,718/- was deposited or entrusted to any of the present Applicants by Baliram or by his",,
son Tarachand is not established. Hence, no offence is made out against any of the Applicants. It was further submitted that the conviction is based",,
only upon the statement of the handwriting expert Dr. P.C. Trivedi (PW8), which is a very weak type of evidence. Without there being any",,
corroborative evidence, the conviction cannot be based only on the opinion of the handwriting expert. It was further submitted that as per the opinion",,
of the handwriting expert, only the name of Baliram was written by hand and rest of the entries made in the electricity bill were not written in any",,
handwriting. Therefore, it cannot be said that the alleged electricity bill was prepared by Applicant Gannulal Dewangan. Applicant Arun Kumar made",,
entry in the CAC register (Article 5) on the basis of the counter slip (Article 4) which was issued for Rs.24/-. The prosecution has failed to establish,,
that any bill for Rs.24/- was issued against Baliram. Thus, the finding of the Courts below is perverse and not in accordance with the evidence",,
available on record.,,
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondent supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.,,
7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records with due care.,,
8. While dealing with the case under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, the most essential ingredient is entrustment of the property to the accused.",,
Apart from entrustment of the property, it should also be proved that the property was dishonestly misappropriated. If the prosecution fails to prove",,
entrustment of the property then the entire case of the prosecution goes.,,
9. In the instant case, there is no direct evidence of entrustment of the bill amount to any of the accused persons. Allegedly, the bill amount of",,
Rs.11,718/- was generated by Applicant Gannulal Dewangan which was deposited also by Baliram. But, counter slip against the said deposit was",,
issued for Rs.24/- only and entry in the CAC register was also made for Rs.24/- only. In the present case, neither Baliram has been examined nor his",,
son Tarachand. Therefore, it is not established that the bill amount of Rs.11,718/- was entrusted or not. Both the Courts below have arrived at the",,
finding only on the ground that since the counter slip was issued for Rs.24/- only and on the direction of the Executive Engineer the accused persons,,
had deposited a sum of Rs.3,900/- each against the embezzled amount of Rs.11,718/-, the bill amount of Rs.11,718/- was entrusted. But, both the",,
Courts below have ignored the fact that the counter slip was for Rs.24/- only and the entry in the CAC register was also for Rs.24/- only. Therefore,",,
in these circumstances, when the counter slip was issued for Rs.24/- and entry in respect thereof in the CAC register was also for Rs.24/- only,",,
amount of Rs.11,718/- was entrusted by Baliram is not acceptable. If it had actually happened, Baliram would have raised an objection while receiving",,
the counter slip of Rs.24/- against entrustment of Rs.11,718/-. Therefore, there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record to establish that",,
amount of Rs.11,718/- was entrusted by Baliram. Mere from deposit of Rs.3,900/- each by the three accused persons on the direction of the",,
Executive Engineer, it cannot be presumed that they admitted the guilt of embezzlement. As per the statement of handwriting expert Dr. P.C. Trivedi",,
(PW8) and his opinion (Ex.P6 and P7), in the alleged forged bill (Article 60) only the name of Baliram was found to be manually written by Applicant",,
Gannulal Dewangan and rest of the contents of the bill are computer generated. Even if this fact is considered to be true, it is not established that the",,
said bill (Article 60) was generated or prepared by any of the Applicants. In what circumstances and why name of Baliram was manually written by,,
Applicant Gannulal Dewangan has not been established by the prosecution. The prosecution has also not been able to connect that from where and in,,
what manner the alleged bill (Article 60) was generated. Even if the bill (Article 60) is considered to be a forged bill, this bill was generated or",,
prepared by any of the Applicants is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, considering the entire evidence available on record, the",,
findings of the Courts below do not appear to be in accordance with the evidence available on record. Hence, no offence is made out against any of",,
the Applicants.,,
10. Consequently, both the revisions are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Applicants are acquitted of the",,
charges framed against them.,,
11. Records of the Courts below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,,