Karnataka High Court
P S I Hire Hadagali vs Basaiah M on 20 August, 2008
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
(By Sfi 3 12.154 CEIIDANANDAYYA, AI)V., ) " ~e..';RL .'A. FILEI3 U/3.378(1) 8:. (3) cm-'>.<:: BY THE STATE pap. FOR THE STATE pmvxme THAT THIS FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT 26'.'11.2000 PASSED BY THE CIVIL -JUBGVE (JRBN) AND THE RESPONDENT ~ ACCUSED FOR THE GFFENCE 11/8.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 8ANGALO_I%}§;!'-:4:'_:'~.V_ DATED THIS THE 2o'rH DAY OF' AUGUST 29.98' " if PRESENT V THE Horrnm MR. JUSTICE 4' --
Mn . % _ V mm Horrnnm ma. JIJSTICE CRIMINAL BETWEEN P.S.I., HIRE 'H51:>Aé;AL;
Hgkparqgr-:ALi;g._§3*p,.L:;14 '-- §".§gP'PgLLANT.
(By Szi: §»;M;" :4;:gi::az;':2§1gi:i_:;'-._s;=>P ) AND :
BASAIAH M a " "
_ 0 BAsAL1NGA_iAH
- _ 'AG§:A:'L'48"¥RS, SECRETARY * "VSE:'»SN, ':e1ARAKANA1,u .;-H2XR}iPAi\EEx§§I.f§LLY TALUK RESPONDENT ._'HOZ'-WBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TC) GRANT LEAVE. TO }3MFc:., HARAPANAHALLI, IN cc NO. 3:0/90 ACQUYITING 409 OF IPC.
fcrtiiizers and pesticides from Karnataka State Co~01'mra1:§'{{§:"'>T. Marketing Federation, Haspet, and the said a1't:i<:1§r;::;*~*éc?j<;3;_;c';L' A' net taken into the stock booifi 32101' the 33.1% ? said articles was credited in the cash J the said articles purchased was »efthe4ix1A:'1't:..of Rs3;?¥A3;74'C}[V V' and the said amount has beefi accused Without showing. nor crediting the amount " The said mjsappropziationp :audit of the books of 'PW.24 and aficr PW.1 lodged the VV The said complaint was ztzgistered 22:-feceived the compiajnt files': by «thp'.documents pertaining to the case ViAn*c:11V1d.i1;gv_thc'ai1d_i1:or's mport and I'€CO1flCd the statement of arrested the accused and released mm' 'as .' ébtained anficipatoxy bail. PW22 after " kzompggtixgg invcstigation, filed two charge-s]:1ee'£s aginst the which were numbered as (3.9. Nc).8()9/1990 and T 310.810/1990 on the file of the Civil Jucige (Jr. D11.) " and JMFC., Harapanahaili. c.c. 1'~¥o.809/1990 pertains m misappropriatiavn cf the amount of Rs.1,§20,589=55Ps., r' \;;.»>** including the value of the pesticides and fertilizers _pf Rs.93,74{}/~, which is the subjeci matter 01"
No.8 10/ 1990. Charge was firmed against the ~ both the cages - C.{2 9103.809 and 810 pleaded net guilty' and 155- V. No.810/1996, the pmsecugtion geé and got marked the ciocumei3;§.§;A'-- and E§x.D1 was got marked in the evi;3.e9.e_e:».o£ 'etamment ef the accused 3jg"E3If;j_P#1#'ivaagreeorvéed. The defence of the and it is his case that a him. Accused diei not lead (1Vefeec;§;€:.»§§L:V' The trial Court after eoz1sic¥.e,r:i11g fiie : of the iearned Addi. Public x 1am: the'V'Ieé3i9ned ceunsei appearing for the 3ec'i1$e(1e. -¢§3;1e_app1ecia§'.ng the oral and doeumentaxy eviéexgee by" the prosecution, held that the '}11.j0SfiCt1tif)"I1';_haS faiieei to prove the guilt of the accused of 'vconlmgitted the ofience punishable under Section ___";1%09;§.P.C., and by judgement dated 2&1 1.2006, acquitted u accused of having committed the offence punishable ufider Section 409 I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said '\;~»'> judgement ilif acquittal passed in (LG. N0.810/ State has prsferred this appeal.
3. We have heard the 1ea:n¢:{i'"'A(iri1:
Prosecutor appaanh g for the aypelléigi :
learned counsel appearing for thee: 'xj§'$pondén.t ~'
4. Leanlcd Adcivlfi' _ Iififosccutor has taken us thra-3.1g}.1 and the contents of and Ex.D1 and " 1133 not properly appreciaifsgi fhfig and the evidenca of Auditer~PW'.«i2<4"Wo1'11d fij1;§v<s: of the prosecution and Wherefqre; the Liudgééxgenf of acquittal is Iiablc t0 be Set V" I_ asidét, other hand, the leamleti counsel appearing fOr f't;Ahe Ivespondentaccused submitted that t0z1Q;a11d 12 to 16 have not suyporied the case: of 'ti1c..Vipm.§§ecufion and Auditofs report is aiso not helpful ta VA €3:1.;:.§I*osec11ti<3n in the present casfi ta gzmve the guilt of the accused as the accused was piaceé under suspension 03:1 \,/Z 02.03.1986 ané. the trial Court has appgeciated azld documentary evidence 011 record in perspective and the judgement of acquittal 3 interference in this appeal. ' _ T submitted that in Ci.C. N9.8{)9f 1e9_9(} a1So, 7i;}1e ivaéj. acquitted and the charge in said :%V-inéigééd misappropriation of the ;}a}1;e anti pesticides, which is the eigzarge in the present case by the triai Court on the? V_fi%eV:"pmsent case :i.e., on 26.1 acquittal has been COflfiImC{i"".}§y Appeal No.454_/2901 by juégemeffiie and therefore, the appeal is he ,
- «V "6. 'efléwing regard to the contentions urged by the for the parties, the points that a1iseA1?9Vr oi1r.fi1e{t,ei;1ni31ation ix}. this appeal are:--
1. " _ _AWhether the judgement of acquittal " ~ p.a&s$eti by the ma} Court is justifieci or calls for :n{erferen<:e in this appeal ?
\&,:~ ané as 01:: the date of handing over of chargt: bj%.. accused ts his su-::c€$$(>r on 13.05.1986, the stcicfic M fert1'l1':a:{%:1's and pesticiées asgdescribed .i£1"th¢ ii':a3.ViE1@_'t:'¢. available. The prosecution is relying 'the :7:
PWs.1 to 25 and the documeiitis;-...VExsi?1V_ Ex.D1 ':9 bring home the of _
8. PW. 1 is the He has enly stated about per Ex.P1.
PW2 is the identified the handw1'ifiJ:ig_Vpf to P17. PWs.3 to 3.9 and 3:2 supported the case of the prosccutiofi.= Iti is evidence of P'W.25 that V whcn visited' -- {Society in Hazapanahally, wherein working as Secretary, he found that the pmperly maintained and he ordered susfieasiogi of accused on 82.03.1986 and asked him to ové:r._.§ihe charge and placed PWJ2 ~ R. Smenivasa Vi charge of the post of the accused. It is further from the evidence of PW. 12 that he has not sup§orted Lijhe case 0f the prosecution. Having regazd to tha fact that PWs.3 to 10 and 12 to 16 haw: not suppogffld the case of \§,.$ the pmsecution, the prosecufion is left with the EiVi€§CI1C'C.::.Uf PWZ24 - Auditor and PW24 has only spoken ~ eieficicxztcy in the stock when the cha1'g;eHAw.as hgxiiéeaiicvcri the successor-in-oifice as per Exs.P1¢VES._ A ix A' Pw.:25 would clearly show tha1: 01; o2§0:3'."1986.'V§V'tg¢2§f, accused was placed under sus§c'3::V';§§lx;{;» was placed in-charge of 3; j' on 01.04.1986. The home the guilt of the of the fertilizers icthc change to the accusmd not been entered in the stock the same was not handed over bythc cuspension to P'W.12. It is V'CJ£:af":I;§Ju;5--..Ex3.AP16Ed"F39 that the said documents pertain which is suhsequefit to the date of susygfisiofi accused and Ex.P16 is dated 13.05.1986 :25 also to the efiect that on 13.05.1986, the dié not hand over charge of the fertilizers and as de$cribed in the charge, which is subsequent u date of suspension of the accused on 02.03.1986. Mere fact that P'W.24 has spcken ts about the fact that there was shortage cf articles comprising of fertilizers and \;,/"as u: 13 :-
pesticides when charge was handexrl over, Wcvuld not itself prove the guilt of the accused in. the present _._ it in the present case, the accused had been Z suspension on 02.03.1986 itself _ failed to explain as to whethegflgte aeettsed }3,a'dTl ' over the said fertilizers and the charge was directed hajiileieeihy inspection of the ofice 1986.
Therefore, it is '[e¥1i_vé_e;friee of PW24 .., Auditor is amt helpful to the prosecu'§iei:i'V'inV..: the accused. Further, on record that the prosecution has 'vne't~._pAm{"1ueed any materiai to Show the '.enm;'$t;me_tit __of ané pesticides into the V when he was the Secretary of the suspended 0:1 02.03.1986. Evidence ef §ve:;1d xsonly Show that purchase of fertilize' ' re and of the vaiae of Rs.85,650/» was mastic as per 21.05.1985 and as {yer the evidence of PWJ1, T "the said fertilizers and pesticides were supplieé on cxedit : basis and Society has maxie payment {If the said bill and Wherefore, evicienee of PW. 11 and also E}x.P8 is not helpful \,»I'''