Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka Through Mudalagi ... vs M P Nander Pcb No 754 Mudalagi P S on 29 May, 2009
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
IN' mm HIGH COURT or ; f % _
cmcvrr nnxcz-1 AT DHARW.§J_.? "-..VV.
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAx»% 6I:3:': Iv£!§Y, =2o%o9L T
PRESENT %
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICEJ 1)"'v:'s:~1YLEN£5R;~,f}<tfIx.{1Ai§
THE HON'BLE
STATE %
THROUGH MUDALA<3I«.F'OLICE
% ...APPELLAN'I'
- A R'E5A'£.EL;ADDL. SPP)
M"PzNAN1jER
PCB M21754
MUDALAG1 P s
':T'Q.'GOKAK
&1s'r:BELGAUM
RESPONDENT
(BY SR1 MURUGHENEDRA S. WANTMURI FOR SR1 ASHOK R KALYANASHETTY, ADVS.,) -2- THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) & (3) 05' CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST TI--_i___E JUDGMENT ma 29.3.2001 PASSED BY THEI. ADDITIONAL JMFC, GQKAK, C.C.NO.998/1998 ACQUITTING RESPONDENT -ACCUSED FOR"-«'.__:' *I*1¢IE' T OFFENCES PIINISI-IABLE U/Is4o9,4a7,% 468,471,-420IPC. T THIS CRIMINAL .APPE}&L 'V«CONII--I'£G' FOR HEARING THIS--....Ia"'DAY,"' .__SHYLEN"DRA KUMAR .J DELIVERED 'I*I=II?, FQLLQWI'NG:f§ This appeal Section 378:'I'df::f*§é' the judgment of 29.3.2001 in C.:€-.Na.§9$['I§9f§- 5;; the file of the Additional . the sole accused, a 7i;wm~king as Writer at Mucialagi Police §t.=;t;iI§;i"c;f Gokak taluk, Belgaum district, of I the Iasfiences punishable under Sections 409, 4-55, 467, 468, 471 and 420 ofIPC.
2. Appeal is on the premise that the learned trial Judge has erroneously acquitted .3- the accused person; that the evidence on __ record has not been properly appreciated proper inference has not been drawn; 2 M acquittal has resulted in rniscariiétge of and that the evidence, on hreoord establishes that the misappropriated a.' by forging the signveture' on two himself being in charge of the police stéztironp when the evidence led p_ onV_»";:ieh_alfVof t]:1--e_proseouu'on was quite cogent to make good the guilt of the acotised. ' I 2 "Appeal had been adnzdtted and VA had been issued. Respondent had ' " eratered appearance through counsel. .4-
4. We have heard Sri A.R.Pati1, 1earned___ Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Sri Murughendi.;aV:;§::}v:ho:"' Wantmuri, learned counsel a.p15eari_I1g respondent.
5. The prosé._cufioh that the accused person waswori{ingAas"é;.W19itér at the Muda1ag' d._4-4h§§=:, dfi}Va;;;é;V';responsib1e for bills, drawing salary, bringjngdd¢dashd'~§§¢g:; the bank, handing it onjcf to thé".._Siafion House Officer and was amounts to the staff at the that, on 19-8-«I996, he had demand drafts bearing Nos.'762808 ' ":d:§o1:d.j'A"A_«762I12 for Rs.8,148/--» and Rs.3,060/-- ' 13.8.1996 and 7.8.1996 respectively drawn on State Bank of India, Gokak branch along with a forged authorisation letter in the sense, the authorisation letter was forged by -5- the accused himself in the name of the Police Sub--inspector of the station Naidu; that, at the bank, the Z the signature of the Poh'ce'-._ encashing the demand' A ' _ 2 afte-ii', had disappeared absented from duty; that folice Sub-
inspector gone out on official d 996% 'returned to the eta of 19.8.1996; that the the accused having ta}j;ena..awua.y' demand drafts on the previous having returned to the station and for duty the next day and suizsecguent dates also, suspected foul play on V' part of the accused person and had décontacted the bank and came to know that demand drafts had, in fact, been encashed by the accused; that the complainant contacted his superiors seeking for permission to regster -6- a complaint and thereafter, a case was registered against the accused at the very----___ police station on 29.8.1996 for the punishable under Sections 409, 465, M 471 420 of IPC; tl1at,:i complainant took up i11veat;Vigaitiiovii" by and took into hie demand drafts which were with of inves tiga.t§;o'1j§;._4«.. V 9 iiiie accused "version that the misappropriiateici-__ was at the house of '"'~..,'Ath¢%.j""'~accu$ed, the amount under a 9 ~ at this stage, handed over to CPI, Gokak and that, the drafts and the authorisation had been sent for eliciting opinion of the 9 ""h9a.n,dWriting expert and on receipt of the report and after completing investigation, chargesheet was filed against the aceused on 31.3.1998. $/
6. In support of the prosecution V. as many as 16 witnesses were e;;air;ined,L'4 P.Ws.1 and 3 being the respect of the mahazar.'u_;1deéi"._§;w§hich,»V' u documents were seized, being the witnesses fof eo»-called misappropziated ' 6 being police co€:1s'i;s;l;5AA}:e.é§_V' __police station, P.Ws;.j'? to of the State Bank of Ind'i'a,:' 1=>.w.11 being a conefable air etation, P.W.12 being the expert who had gven report about of the documents, P.Ws.13 being clerks working in the office of the "§fee;::;_g1;.¢jee;z-intezxdent of Police, Belgaum, 1=>.w.15 . __being the Circle Inspector of Police and P.W. 16 V' being the complainant who initially investigated the case.
%/, «S--
7. Ex.P.1 to 13.33 were marked as documentary evidence. The orig':-gal complaintiié' dated 29.8.1996 had been marked as i forged demand drafts had been Ex.P.8 and P.9, forged authoriseticii. been marked EXP. 10, the reports of the ~ _
8. The Ex.P.8 to P10 to D3 on behalf of' support of their version' that theisignéitures were genuine and forged by the accused.
Z completion of the evidence on the prosecution, in his statement V. Section 318 of Cr.P.C., the accused has V""*»»..4i4:.3tated that the case of the prosecution was a concocted one; that, it has been falsely filed against him only for the reason that he did not
-9.
oblige the complainant and superior officers at Gokak Police Station for inflating the TA DA bills of the staff at the station; _ disregarding their illegal instruction, annoyed and had foisted a him; that Ex.P.8 to P10, and the authorisat:&e_fi._ faclt; Been signed by the Police of the station he, in fact, had had handed over it to the day of drawing the as per the directions of ' that he did not attend work as the Station House Officer had not aseigaed any duty to him as per the roll.
10. The learned trial Judge, on appreciating such evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and the defence taken by the accused, found that the evidence led on behalf ~l0~ of the prosecution was not either convincing er clinching; that the very delay of about 10 in registering the complaint accused, created considerable' suspicion. about the prosecution case; iact' complainant hiraieelf the investigating Vofficer ivsiages also had vitiated ijeeiieiiewmg trial and of the accused and:':;hex§eife:~s;~;s. considerably weakened the that, at any rate, the prhsepcntiorii' not able to prove beyond ' doubt that the accused had in fact, i'zasfitholitiieieitithorisation, taken away the demand AA from the police station and had
-enicashed them by forging the signature of the Police Sub-inspector and had misappropriated g// the amount.
-11-
11. As against the theory of the prosecution of forgery and misappropriation b_'y'~.V_, the accused, the learned trial Judge found ~ defence and the version of the--"aocused _.I'Iito,re V' probable in the Wake of the de\1fe1.op_;nentsp--V§t}1at it it the amount which was misappropriated was a. :,g:,fneunt, -- a meager amountpgpof that, even as per_fl_1ejirosectitionflszitiaessies, it was only accuisgd along bringing cash 'to the staff of the ._,,.stati,cp§V what,' " person who had such really intended, would not have re'so1*ted..:*nisappropI*iation of a meager eamounssa 123.1 1,000/-- and odd risking his job endjgjiipossible conviction for misappropriating . amount; that the very fact that the ~ " amount, in fact, is said to have been recovered, when it is the case of the prosecution that the father of the accused person informed the
-12..
availability of axnount at home, only indicates that if the accused was not amount, there was no occasion for hirngito Vhiaviei 1 taken the amount and kept'it"a';t« it seized and to get prosecution and that highly ixnprobable 1. . case was in fact having come termed as the seized, that again, on the stateinent Jifather of the accused. 1 ..S_ubmiesion of Sri A.R.Pati1, learned it VSPP is that the evidence on record particularly of P.Ws.5, 6, 15 and 16 read with evidence of handwriting expert -P.W.12 was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt; that the handwriting expert had clearly opined that the sigmtures were found to be at variance with the normal signature of .43- the complainant not only on the demand drafts, but also on the authorisation letter; that this was clearly supportive of prosecution case of forgery; that the A the accused had remained abge'nt~a;1d come to station nor had ret11r§1ed--_t}1e ejgtoux-atdd clearly further coxroboratefitdhe of the prosecution geeifiee; that such evidence a finding of gu.§1t:_e¢¢"1i:ged and there was do qtieeftio;d=.of.,.V't."1He_1ea;m.ed trial Judge accordiiig:'bef1e-fitfiof in favour of the accyieed. the judgment Warrants accused person convicted of Védieged against him.
. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of the accused, Sri Murughendre. S. Wantmuri, 1earned counsel would point out various discrepancies in the prosecution case that all -14- punch witnesses turning hostile is a circumstance which clearly demonstrates falsity of the prosecution case; that very employees viz., the constables '4 police station also being. i the prosecution case truth, is a the prosecution case of any trial Judge has '-svfhiiie the prosecution case taeen proved to any satisfaction,' " .1e_s.s'e alone, beyond any ' .reasonahie:"'doubt, it was inevitable to acquit that the judgment of acquittal does' not call for any interference and the may be dismissed.
14. We have considered the submissions at the bar and perused the record. ,.
9/ -16- probability of the accused indulgng in acts forgery, misappropriation etc., for a --. amount of Rs.11,000/~ when had.Jopportunit§'_~Vfoa it indulging in the same act for which was one of the factoi1csV,:',"
learned trial Judge, is riefmiteig?',_:'aw"-»factoi*'which goes in favour of the 'pot as if people cannot be
17. which not only prejudices the -case fr-ieiiiaccused, but throws doubt ...ia§:>out the rosecution case is the 3% cc;iap1ainarit~,It1i;f:self acting as investigating oflicez' a.,consideifa'bH1e length of time and claiming
-i.i.i'_j:..seieure ofvgthe amount by him on the basis of the made by the father of the accused, and 'ti*:e,_._iiat}1er of the accused being not examined. "fiiiis is a circumstance which digs a big hole in the prosecution case.
-17- We also observe that While the accused the defence that the demand drafts ~ authorisation latter were in fact complainant and handed : ove\§»,__ 19.8.1996, it is the case of' the complainant had ouwtlle afternoon of 18.8.1996 station only by the therefore, there is no himself haviiflg haztdetitdavféf demand drafts and authozisatiofit.._1ettei*ate-_ accused. This stand haife« proved or made good by House Diary which could have only the movement of the but also the possibility of any other iiaving recorded the movement of the _ person along with the demand drafts.
18. In fact, it is the case of the prosecution itse1f that, in the Station House ~18» Diary, there is an entry to the effect that'f:fi"ae accused had left the station along _ demand drafts, which thedu "= movement of the accueed:;'_"eaiasod»._ not "'oVn1yI1:_:
authorized, but also ':.re"1§y_ mixch how of the persone at state of affairs, if the cared to place House Diaxy; fivmch could have its case, the only infetenee is that the Station ,,.jf1ot1.se has been deliberately Withheld .,a12.d'«.thVe"re_fore, leads to an adverse inference '2 ""oeiIigV--"dr:awn against the prosecution version.
19. While, we find the reasoning and conclusion of the learned trial Judge neither improbable nor illogcal, we find that the prosecution case is improbable fer the reason that the demand drafts, even as per the -19- statement of P.W.6 --Po1ice Censtable, had beeififs.
handed over ten the Police Sub»-ir1spectoIf_ is not explained as to how i.1;,Ah§;1d _ '4 his -possession to be taken by a€::_:u~s:5ed ' the bank. This, coupl¢ép<:3..:V%:'§::vith of the Station Ho1;*ssA' 'Vs_:<3u1ffl_3r_.'1e¥1&s'~fu.1%:her support to Vthe than supportizsg therefore, it is 'this appeal as without V 'Ps.ccordir1g1y_,&,appea1 is dismissed. Sd/-n Iudgé Sd/'2 Judge bkzv