State Of Karnataka By Kumsi Police vs Murudappa S/O Rangappa on 3 February, 2011

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka By Kumsi Police vs Murudappa S/O Rangappa on 3 February, 2011

Bench: Manjula Chellur

 _ cHAN;§1A_G:R1 TA'I;;U._rg_' ____ N _

1?? 'T§ff§ ?{E(}fi C3{){}f€7F €31' E{3£E€?€EX1Z%}{j% ﬂ§I'EﬂfXE{{§jX§J{}f€ES
EI}A"I.'§*ZIl) TF1 IS '§'}':'I 1? 3*"? DAY OF FEBRUARY; 201. 1
PRI*IS',{i';N'I';
fi(}?V"E3IJF§ ?vi}?E3. gJ{}ES7EI(3E§ R4j\I§k}[JI4§X (3}{E€l.I,{§}% ;"*

AND

E-{OE\i"BL}j~3 MR. JUSTECE' K.N.K135E-iAv;xNAI2ﬁ--'%?&Ngx§_' ;; J: f  _

CRIM'INAL APPEAL N<).1.335 OF 200;; '

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA.    _ ' ' 
BY KUMSE POLICE.  ,.A:J:>.g«:L;A--_z»:T 
(BY SRI.G..M.SR1NlV.ASA RED1>Yi,__1§¥1jcQm_V_V '

AND:

MURUDA;}?PA, 'g. 

s/0 IzA:.vGAP1-'>A;._«. " ,  

AGED 4EZxYEARS."  '  " '-

FIRST D1\'/Isixtm    

AYANUR, "  ' _ Q 2 

R/O JAOLADIMIALE,' . 

...RESPONDENT

 étsysgai  FOR SRI.R.B.DESHPA1\fDE, ADVOCATES)

"'J.1..imi'S"_C{am/1':'_§aA1. AI§'P;£€i.AL IS :«:'I1,E:I> UNDER SECTION
378 __(1) &.. {:3} 'OF cmxc. BY TI--IE STATES 9.9. FOR THE

. sTATf::. P'--RAYiNG "_['H.A'I' THIS 1:-I0N'BLI«: COURT MAY 13:':
 <91,EAs1«*:;_::a TO GRANT LEAVES TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAENST
iI'HE»_.J'U1)'GEMENT DATED 1:.05,2004 PASSED BY THE
 'A£}{)IT'}O£\§Al, Cl"\.«-'1L JUDGE {SR.DI\§.} AND C.J.M,, SHIMQGA
_ ~_II'€.   C.C.E\Io.356/1993, ACQUETTING T}-IE

%  '"R;3§3£>0:\sDE:N"i'/AccUs1a:£) FOR TI-{£3 OF'FI?,NCE
.. " PL:NI_SE-XAEBLE UNDER SECTION 409 OF IPC»



Em»?

"§.'E"iiE':3 2'-'xl3Pl§;.537XEe.< COl'\«'§l§'~JG FOR l3'"LE'l3("l'§---'l}33E3i 'E"'l.l£AE'{lNG ON
Tl--{ES EEAY, K.N.KESHAVA,NARAYANA -1., [}ff:LlVEREl3 'I'l"l§3
l*'Ql,LOVV'fIN'G : ~

JUDGMENT

T1115 appeal by {he S1.al.e is <:li:'e<:f;.ed judgnlent and order dated lE.O5.200<%« pass-sea-ZE A{lCiilil0E}&1l Civil Judge [Sr.Dn) <3: ll N0356/E993 £tCqL1ii,l,iI1g the 1'es;)€:x1d<-jﬁ&.,%l21(:i:1,1seel' offence puniehable under Seeti%}l_1'i*4.O9 Il3{'.,l V

2) The ease of the p}'OSC,Cll:i:l.QI1".ll1 bfie'1" £s_Aa5_:{,111der:~ The respondent/aec.uSecl7.R.i_Mui*L{g:ialppa, was working as l:"i.E'S'EV,v"D--l\1'_I":'.§£"'x:_7'.1;1":;l'l:§3SIS'Le}lI}l'.v. [ll}"c)1"~~vV.s~:}';;l()rt, FDA') in Primary Health Ce11--leI* to as 'PHC' for short), Ayamur ffcjmLlllO.(l)?.. capacity, he was entrusted with the \'--'VOE"l!{ p1*e'pal*én;L§.sala1y and other allowance bills «--:r.1_.A1"1c:i. '-".}l'.i'SlC):ju11A'S:3.1TE1(i'I1lj Of""i'l'1e salary and other £{ll0\«VE1I1C€S to the V-..A0ffi.(fe;?S allele n'1<~:mbers £il.l,aCl'l(;',d to .PE~lC. Thue he was in acl<:l1"1.i(m to other work. PW.l3 M Ve11u.g0p23.l ~ x-xfas worlezing as Second Division Clerk (for short 'SD01 izéﬁite. said PHC and was a:~3--ssissi:i1"1g the a.(:c,use::I in the {st-1§11'€é"«.t>§fi<:e at 111:: ;'elevzmé;. peixzl, of time. In the mzmth GE' . ;

-lﬁéfy ,3 f-

i 1}ec::L*.:1":h::=:1" 293?} E, as L.1$~;uaL tile ;:<:<:L1s:3eci wifh the 213:5-2.is;iz-1:":c<: 5:"

I5"i»V. $3 and 21.11{>£.P1e'1" pers<m by I'121IE'1(;', V ei.tii:*21j,,, 5-3t:ip<;~:é;1di21z'y t,y§)ist., p'1"e;:pa11"<2ci the salary bili of i_.E1<: ::sf§3.C<3rs ancfi E.he_.si2:ff H1€ff11bf;'fI'S aE.tac:hcécI to PHC, Ayanul" and s11bmi§:1'.ed {'0 the 'treas1.1ry ibr pay:me'r1t.. 'i'h<:>, Said salazzjz . hommred by the Lreeiszzly and the ohfsquess ..i'o1:-t1je;i:no«;;né;_ was _p:"<:p:»3.'1*ecI. On 01.01.1992, the bills were received from the .»i.1>:3§}sL11"Vy*;.V_ "'I'he C)ffice.r one D1:'I'0:*a\ri endorsed iviilanle of I3W.13 au1.h0rEziz1g hirnv ctohsféd. under the chequ.es. AQ¢01*diz1gly_l_ the treasury, CO11€Ci'€d "L"1'}€'._1:i'i'€:)13€§;:f3'i\\z'€T€3d-.uﬂd'€1'~~iH€ Ch€C§L1C'S and ret'u'med to the 07§_{'ice \rvi1,I"1'ﬁi1';1e m;jr;ey";=. "Ther«:*.a£"3;er, the accused being incharge: 0? the .aﬁ'd'em,1'ustment of the work of diSbL£rSE31I1€ﬁ{O1:v'Lh€"SEl1éI'y: distributed the saialy to some of "'~,.i:.he who (téi1éi6§""tVo coliect the salary 0.1'; that day.

P{:3=t.$.f'<3:*«¢:%',v..'::_*x'1h2imy'of the ssitaff couid not <7r:;i1ec':: Ehe saiary by the e1id..C)'£"1.hve' gi.;e1;,:}::f; 01.01.1992» Th€;'€1C'.C2!..iS€d 1E'.ﬁ.{.hi'. at-'race by

-V 1t)c?1~:i§1'g.1.VE*,.§=. }'»X§z1'1i1'a1E1 in his centre} and did not re'LL1m to the . _g.f1La1}f_<:»r1V't'he s;L1ccr:<:(1i11g day. On 02.01.1992, ssome of the T 'S1i,€:'f£"S_A.C:«31T1£3 to the cash 53{f(7ti{}IE for <:olEe:c1,i1'1gg their salazjg, K??-

4 heweVe.1": ssimte {he a<:e1.:.<3e{i was I101. E"01mci there they emild not be paid Salzxiy Some C)fﬂ1f;',II'} also sig'ne,d {he aeqL1.3;i,e1'zee I'e~;§,§i$€1e%r on O?;9Gi.E992. as per ihe i.1'1s"£;ru c:f;§::m::'~:; of P'\.?\7.13}_b'1,:t4 they were 110% paid the ssaiary, as The key of the £XIF]1.i-I'€tIT1::"

with. the 2Z1€'.('iLISC',dV Even on the sLzc:c%eedi13g---- C}6.01.E992§ ihe accused did not reu_,_1r33,_fj"o1' d;€1ijf.'* D1'. '1'0,::'avL the Medical Officer ef higher officers and in the p1'ese'1:"_1.(':'e_VoI' end one Meenakehamma. the wife --a_ecL1é§ed.f the v:A1.mirah under the e013f:.'r0E of tfxeﬁ&ee'L_1se:pivhkept the office was opened. but no h1ohey....w,asV. Iexmdh hinsidethe Aimirah. Thereafte:'~----m1'jAV.(3eT7"'h.O;ii;::,:],VV99'2tD14'. e1"ax.ziv"E0dged a complaint with the j1.1fiV_s;di.a:;'Li0h;é§£."=- ' per Ex.P.12, wherein he suspeei:edhe_Qhth the PW. 13. He alleged that the u1.1--e1is'.:211rSed 'V salaay end other aliowanees has been ..IniS€.:;§5i§fQ}}1'i&1,1€d b§f't%:-eaccétlsed incharge of the cash section .V._2111d'"f?W.-13; 'wh"e.._was worlﬂng as SDC in the Said eeetierx. Baseel,' on' '."_'1"£>:.'P§12, case came to be registered and _ i11V7es"i.'ig.au;iez1""Was 'giakemup. I)m'ir1g" investigation. the h VE"m'esf'ige1€.i*I1g O{fiee'r v'is1'1'.ed the hmzse of the accused and in j .A1h:irz2,11. found in his hcmse :=,ee.i:'«:ed a SL311} Oi' ?15.E5«'i»G/--

1.':

£2, , 35"' L1.I1Cl€'f r:1z;1l':21:e:21:"~l:3x.P.3 IX "fhe eaid 'c'1I1'1{)L}I1l. of ?15,6élQ{»~ was-3 hanszied over to {he Meclieal o'l'fieex' on 09.01.1992 under .23. 1'e;ceEpt for c:iis13i.1rs3'1"11gg s:aalz1:'y to the s..11'1ApaicI 5511211? I)1,1_I*ing i:1ves{,i.gat.ioI1, the house of PW. 1.3-V€I111g()pEiil ..:..E1lS"Q seareI'1.ecl. but no incz'11m'11at:l'ng IIl£1l.€'I'lE1l was l'_o't:.;:'1(:lA:lEr:{;"'l1ie'------.T = house' PW. l3 produced a receipt/a7c:.l§.11owle_d§§ei'1'1--e_1:;.i,--lI§xP.9»V ll exeC:.1t.ed by the 2-1c:eu--seCi for havirigg 1*e't:e*§ved._tl1e"

eovereci under the cheques 131;-'m'..or1 OIQQI. the same was seized. The cash b"-O0lx;.V_E1Cq.LEE'{€_11Cf€ i3*eg1'.ster, cheque books and o1.hei' =re:gi_ste:'s;j_i'oUI:Ci'»i£'1~lt:h.e cash section of the PHC were also seized__u'nd'e.r meﬁaz:irl--_F;X..P.4. D'u1"ir1.g invesiiga.iio'n.A_ilqe wzis'-lllaf)prehended and after eompletilag ' i§1w'estigl{a.t4io11V,VlV'elelarge sheet: came to be laid against the lé1<;elLasecl..

"The .é.e'eu§_e_ei, upon his appearance before the AV__vlea1r'necV1 Magi'sffai__e pleaded not guilty for the charge levelled aga1'.h*st l'.1lil"i"_'1.:"~'~?'.IV1'7(;lVCilaifilﬁid to be triecl. The prosecution in . ordefto home the guilt of the aecsueeci, examined 20 *.v§tnee;Ses"'21.n.d placed z"eIiaI"1oe on. {he cEooumer1tary eviclenee _j_.:11l:w.rl?:etl ae Ifixelpl to P33, I)L1r1'ng the (:::'oss3Aexa111ir:ation of :.wJ' €11 1.3%-='e,55 7. 8 23. the defencre gcxt": :tm;1r'}{ecI ihe p«:>z*1.ic:>;1::; of theix" :=31.atemer:.i :.:r1dc:=.:r Sec:€.i<m .161 21$ Eixs. {)1 1:0 D46 'i.'h.e deience 0%' {he acc::_zsed was one of 1,£3ia4i_¢'de_i1:§a_1A' and that 01' flzﬁsse implieatian. As could be §5eei:._I"ra[h1'ihe"' eu.gges{.icmss put 10 the pr0sec.u1.i0.n ;%mmés;;es_d-:;z;-=:.1j_g--.;:-::o's;;¢_ V' ex3.mj:1a'i;.i01'1, the defence of the ae<?u'3eCE-._wz1s5 1:hla.i;.,"he Wa'-.8» not ent.rue1.eci with the duty of his furiher defence appears i1e.__he ::1:;i:eA§;§ £>'g}Mh1 the s{;ai'f meI:r1hers (tame to the Je.e_2,~'1'f3.h salary he was not preeﬁeneg collected {foal the treasL:1y;hy;"»_PV;}':.»-{Q _entrusted. to him on that dayﬂ f*I0{_£feVe--1*,Hdhrizigt >f'3§.{§1I,TTl1'1_';E1JEiOf1 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C,., he uadn'V1it"1'.ed«Va:h.atV'he"'W.éis entrusted. with the work of disbmﬁe-e.meni:E"uiﬂtf1.e.v"sa1}'é1r§.aI1d on 01.01.1992, he in fact hLfisbuzrsted.'nsaieuy to éef11.e of the staff, those who came to ":;g11'e;:t' the end of the day. He further putforth the Lieferaee. at the end of {he day, he handed over the VL1.;1»cEisb1'4L'sed salary along with the Key of the Almirah and ie_f.ter to D1'. Toravit. Mecﬁical Officer, 33311.0 was the Unit ."e-.._"§**Ie2£d. 'I"§f:m..<a,_ aec::::1'<iing}; 10 the accused, he has not mis~ :'é11:)}i)I"{)pFiEi1,€'3C§ may money beI(n1gir1g in the G<m::r1'1meni':. ,.

gﬁiirre' ».,_j

5. :'&ﬁe;=:f hearing; both sicless amt? on 21esese;':;e:'1i. of era} as well d(><%1.1:11eI1i,e1:y evic:ie:1ee, the Eearned E'v'iagis3£1"a-te by the j'L,1cig;.me1'1t {.EE1d€§' appeal, held 'i.}1:'»:'i. the "£}Z"()€~3(Z'L??.':"L:iV.{}'i'ErEftéiﬁ' failed to establish thai. {he accuseci was en11'L1s:-j4i'e*é Wi?;'1i": ' work. of cEiebL1rsing the salary to ihe~~s»!'aff emd Vi.E1;§;t. he V incharge of the eash seetiozz. The 1{§1€i'I"}1::'_';_'(:'§ " iV1;1gis£1'ai,e«fu:§*tIj1eﬁ*.:

held that EX.I-'.9 produced by {?W';..1_3 EH.' "'.:*»e1a:1.eoi»v.Vet2ige--»c21'1i.11ot = L be reiied upon and {hereby theV:p.r_oseeL1t.ior:.hAasAEf'ai1ed to prove that the money' -salary had been handed over to the aec,t1sed:"cﬁ"1' therefore, the learned friai. Vpro éeeution has utterly' I.'a1'Ied to [3'ro\}.e'5the': ieese13'i1a_1' if1g1=edienf,s to constitute offence under Seeiion In "this View of the matter, the Eearned the reeponc1er1t/ accused of the ehzzrgie §éV"€1I€d'&ig3.,i{}§?hiII1. .A.ggrieved by the said 'jV1;1'é:':»rL.{:11en§.of_}iCqL1ittaI, the Staie is before this Court in this e'1--pf:>'ea}.. V ' We have hearci 8'11 G.}\/1. Sreenivasa Reddy, ieairfied High Court. Gove1"mn.e11t. Pleader e1p13ea1"ing for the z5gppe1121ni,~St.21£c: and Sri. Dinessh for Sri. RB. I)eSh;o2mde ;1§>pea1"1'ng for the ree§3o11c:Ie11t/a<:c:%,>ssed. gs ?

if';

Ax iii 2?. It is the §3L'E.b§"I'liE5S§.€}I'1 of Sré. G.}\!E. S1'€'.€Z}§.\»'&-'i$£1 Rectdy £11;-LE, the jucign1er1t. Lmder appeal. highly perverse and iileggai iI"kE1:5I11tiC'.h 213 the learned Magist;t"21t:e has completely ignoreci the 'v'{)1L1I11i.§}{)'L1S oral eviclenee placed an reeorcf in 131"o0£Td'.§7.:,he entmsm1er1I', of the c1L,1ty 01' disbL1:"sing the saiagjﬂ .'t()* :t11e« ac:c"a.:sed and the accused bemg inc]1a1'g"e of the L'..2_'T-tshi'$(3V€IttOti'}'_"' of the PRC' Aya'r1L11'. It is hiss sL1b111i:'.'-35301':«that. Scn~c_:e'iE.ec1 0~Ff1'ce'*V' order referred to by the learned i:1»"ihe'~<:c;t1i*-ﬁe the jtldglnent has been p1'OV"6.d.."'.iI1 Hg,-'{1t;'§0VfH the 'Oral evidence of the pr0secu,t'i011 \vit'r:e«s"sesVV,'*-»who have. iii chorus deposed that the accusetécti Vi§I}10"3V§£e}21s "FDA in PHC, Ayarmrij, Cash section and he had been entrt1st,et'i with 'of:11'3»;~e.-pa1'i11g salary bill of the oFf1'ce'rs and the s'taff..and Vt:iﬁ1eA'c1'tst.:'niVbutio1'1 of t.he salary to the staff. \x.711ia:<111 evidence' 113,5 remained ur1»c0ntrover'ted in the cross» V'ex;1rfii11eitt,iL>ri".~__ It is his subrr1iss'i0n in this regard that the e__1eL2ujried:"Magji'st1'é;1;e has .1'ai.1ed to notice that the accused dtztriiig h1'.S"e:'j{:XE1I"ﬂ.if1ai,i.OI': under Section 313 C1'.P.C. has e1dn.3i:e1'eéi.at.h;1t. he \VE3.S-3 enhfusted xx-ith the work of Vi."di$bu1*se2ﬁet1E. of salary 0? the sstaff 21t.t21eheCI to PHC. and this " z;CEt31i§s'sic')r1 on the };:>art of the accusseti du:r1'r1g hie exami.;.1at,i0m .

9 urizfier' S€3{:":,i()r1 3 £3 Cz':'E33.C. «:3L1gE"1i. {it} have bzzxscn reiieci u;'>m1 ':33? the iezxmed .I\s'ia_s,;_.§.i5,e*£Tra't.€: to £:1C£'€1p'i, the i@s;'i.i121c3r1}.-' oi {ﬁber w'i1.:1ess<3ss, Wm} have: Sp<3.'Kff'.§".a 'L0 1' 11 this; 1't3g'ar¢:§, In t.hi:3 'f:*23§;;«1_;*%;--'._, he 21130 .5;01,1ghil to plz-1(7.t';* reliance on {he jL1dgn:en_i_ é9£' ~ Court', in 2003 scc (C11,) 1514 [Mama s;'ihghT;."Q-1ér¢m_ Singh and Another]. 1:': is his fut:i;1.j1e31*f_é5t:1j:1"£1:ssjiofi era}. evidence piaced on rc3<:01'c:i><;t1'e~:1.rE3,r eA$via.b1i'sh'e:_s 1':.h'z1i..I?\3';7. 1.3 a L W110 We1"11 to the i:'1'easufy for tlﬁéé covered under the ctileques iSStvl€§'C;.3.V '1).}[ ._()'11 return to the <)ffi.Ce handed V who was incthargﬁ of__ and this fact is further £'01'ti.1'*i(;d'--- Eérprn E h;€'. made by the accused during 5113" éxanii'ﬁ{af<iV0nV'vmizéief Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It is also his SI;'?.};:)'IIiiSSi'GT.1 th£ii:_ eve1"1 assuming {by the purpose of argw;}1eVnAi that PQ___is.nL)1, reiiable on the ground that 11: did »n;O't» Vt'i'1€; '1i§i1§__ of the day for nearly 1'/2 years from the date c;i§":Lh.<=: cQ::€'p1a.i_nL the materiai on record and the acimissian made by E116 accuseci du1*ir1g his exan1i;;1at.i0*r1 under Section 4_Cr. I3.C, i1Iseifw'0u1d prove the cjnirusiment. c)f'1,he money aCC.'.'£.1Sf;*d by PW.§.3 on O1,()iaI.992. in i.h"i:<s regard. he VV ""c:'i1"ew our .2?;U;.e1'3i.ion is the :<;sEa.t.e;;11e3r1E: of the aczécusisd unxcler M} Seciiorz 333 C1°..13pCi. To éhe e[§;e<:1'; ihzxi. at 1}}:-3 end of the {$2132 on €}i..O1r1'~E§92, he haraded over ihe 2,211-d1sb:.:1'se<:i sakary zxlong w.i.'L}": the krfy of the A}mi:rah {.0 the med.ica§ officer being; the Limit head and on this basis. he srlbmiﬂed 1;lj.:11.;'-.j{T:;.i:s statement. of the sceused ii1selfWou1d irldicate t'11a;;'__t}'1'e _ money collecéed by PWJ3 from treasury ha-ai"13e:e:1'h.a11dE:d"

over to the accazsed. T'he'refore, he £:or1t.encf? t.]91'r:2i the fi.ri.i:!§_r1gs .« recorded by the learned 1VIagés=tra_'_'re t:i1Vé1At:V_1'.i:e failed "Lo prove the €I1'LE'i,1SiII"i('31'1vh{"~'_(>)'b1" rnoney ':21cc¢g,1sed on 01.0i.}992 is pe:'verse..'_.éir1c¥ the evidence on record, as such, ii; is ]1ab1e_{'oV.be-v _sei. a--:~§i~de;~:.}jo -this Vi6W of the matter, he submijjgjs-'£'!1é€' t}'1e"prosec:{.1tio:rr has satisfactorily proved she' emr'us:fme12':u"os{%"é;h'e"money to the accused and since ad'niiﬁ,eA(1lVy 'r4I3e'e;L::,:i11osed has not accounted for un~ dishuersecl sa1€£;'y.._amour1t., the conciusion that can be »reac11ed isVt1'ia1_._t'.he accused has misappropriated the said s;r:r1t;--usr1i;, 2:r;:--i_ 'i.h's1 the resporadent,/'accused is liable to be co;r{r'ic:1.c%ri for 1'::he oﬂence ;3L1.nisha§31e under Section 409 of Per' <:on£,ra. Sri. Dmesh. learned counsei for the u "".a<;':cuse{i sougghi. Lo jusi.ify {he jL1o1gIrsenE: Lmcier appeal and s23 ':5 1 I :3o1'1t'.end»::-:*d Eihzzé the jt,1c.i g._,_2;:11t~7~.:3'£' "E.Ii".£{iC'f§" :1p;.3e.21E ci<:aes,a not $32,256:' from §,»<;~,1'\.Ie,1"sity or i11e;_:§aIi£.y-*. It is his; subm:is-3$io1': that on §::1*o;>e1.' 2app1."eei'a:'tio1": and <:()1':eic§erat.§<)1i of the <:>ra} as; wet} as d<)<:u.n1em2-try ev1'c§em?<:*., the Ieamecl E\/I.21§§ist.1'e1§,e has }'"vf;3C:(')3:'C1C_d za. fmciillg that the f)I'f)S€CEHli(}11 hzas §'a:i§e€ii to prove. of the accused for the aéharge 1eVe11.ed E1g§1i11Si. hifI1'i11}:tE1p*lCh£i sai<:1 ﬁnding; being sound and 1'eason21b'£e, }1mié'11ggee..regg2i'rd""fgg,theA evidence on record it'. cannot be 12',ght.1yV7iI1te:'£'e=re(1' Court sitting in appeal against the §_tzd.gn1e1ii'.* of a'equ3tta1.. He i"urt.he'r SLEb1'I"1i1.S that. zie~._ﬁr:otic§ed"t.1j;e learrted Magistrate. the prosecution has not....p.lé_1eed..21.3y'Eictcieyitsxble evidence to establish that §.t"I1€§::::EiC;.'CL£§;C'(ii Kyéis e_ht'_rt1ét<:d='wi.th the money on 01.01.1992' 1'ov14"v'V'tjei_f1gt4'di:e'hfib=.1t.ed to the staff members therefore.'efsSe;1t,5:;:I to eonst.iE.ute offence under Sectigorl 5109 of 11-45-. rtot been eefabﬁshed, as such, the °--.Ieai'ne<:i?."Magjst.rateVhiéis not ctommitted any error in holding t__i';'.f3e_ ?ar:c§t1$edgt.:_iit'.y of the charge ieveiied against him. It ie'31;ié 'i'L1:{t.he§'f zéubmissiorl that. having regard to the fact that ]3XP.€3 hot, see light. of the day :.1.ear}y for N12 ye:-:t1'S, the e;z:'i':ae has been rightly viewed w1't.h euepioion, more so, in '"\;*je$:v"A{)t'° the fac::t Ehai; for nearly 20 moI1the PW.§3 was also ;»?m"z1ig;11e{'i as am. ;=1crr::":.zs~;e<:§, aqrid ifzze i:1vee1.ig21é.i<::'1 ws-355 pmeeedeci in that direemm against 'bath the a«::£:22sse<:§ and PW. E3} fizereibre, ii. kxigliijy-* pmbzible 1.ha'L. f{5-"J'~.-"£3 En erder he SEIVC his own s1«;i1'1 mussi. have £l:1brie.ai;.ed ar1d_4vve1'e.;t{€:(i E3x.E'.9, as such, {he iearxzed Eviagistraie has not§__L:0ii1ifx*i.E{.ed__x' amy error in dis';3e1ievi11g EiZx.P.9. Ex: ibis \:'ieW"'o'i'-- .E£:i?.f;'. }'I1E't'1§A.f£f:1T_5 he su.bmif.s than the pmseeutmn 1:_1t.i'e:4;'1§,9=Ifzii'I.eVti ent;1"us'm":eni. of money to the 2'é.ec:u.sed,'a,_s Vs1e,1(th:,WihAe jggdgpdeni _ under appeal is sound and reasﬁefaéjlﬁieﬁ» }:[v'ﬁ§CfO€S not call for "interference is HhViAs further subm.i.ssion that the of the accused by itself be a basis {herefo1'e, no '1.repor'tance can be attached eead this has been rightly taken I101.reﬂ'py ihe Ee31.'m--ec:1V_1\/iagisirate. in this View of the Inatter, he »$Ov.::g'1";i,vi"o1f--dismissa1 of the appeal and confirmation of the jaw:tig:':"1e'm."_e.{aeqixitiaxi ~reec>rded by {he Ceuri. below' We have bestowed our armxious C0r1sidera1.i0r1s to 1§1€ EELibII1iS1E§iGI3S made 01:1 both sides' We haw: perused the fecercis. e10seEy se1'ut,ini;:ed the evidence on record and carefully reaci the jm:1g'mer1i Lmdez" appemli. In the ﬂeets and .

I3 cirqrums:1:.ances GE' €116: ctase. the f"m1.1c;wi:2g pc'}§3';'i;.:+s awissat £132" £3112"

<:0:1s5ide1"at.ic3:1:--

$3 W'he;t'her I,'E1e §r--:a.1"ner:i Mziggiatram is ju.s%;ifi<3::§ in Elcbldimg the respc§ndem,/arzcuseci not gL1:i1i:y of £.11.év._ crhayge 1.e\:e11@d against. him?

ii} Whether 'the judgnmnt. undt-:1" appeal 51,1E'1'£:rs;.::£7rQ':'1aV §3erV@,rsﬁ'.y or iliegaiity c:a11i:1g}»f"01'bj;";i§:r£%j;ré-ijcrrg 'ivy this CQL111'?

10. Ex.P.39 :3 the 'Q:fI°ige h";e;n0.;fa1:1_dt1.fi€"'~d;:1i:ed 25.08.1988, by which the acc},1S€i€£'v-W£rs_ :.ra:1's;'er;~eafto PHC, Ayanur anci subsequei'ii,Ihy*-hLs__ duty at PHC.

Ayanujfl Krishna Murthy, who was woVi"Piif1g§ in PHC at Ayanur from 1984 to April 1990, in VhisAAQ1;&iE~--':§3xr§dence has dated that in 1987 Carliéi-.--G"PI"IC, Ayanur. as FDA. There is no Vcsr<$s':=;e'x:arpVi'Ia§iti:Q11 to PW.11 in this regard. In his exai'r1ir121t',i("$i1'j_ iLi.r1der Secﬁon 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has s?;.a1;eLi ihgxé. he was 'trar1ssfe'r'reci to PHC. Ayaraur as FDA in " Thus from the above .11, is dearly established that the é:§cf(::15;ed wa.s working 315 '}?'Z{3A in PRC, Aya'nL1:" from 19868'? 'and he (:(:r;r1t,i.m.1eci to C10 go even in .1.990~91. A«::c0rc:1i'r1g; to the Ea?

(i:21sc: of the p1'os€(*11t.i<'m the a.:%c',used W'r1'i.ic;% wc}r1.«;:'.:':g as NBA was e11é;rt:si.e(,i with v:--11"'.io2.2s dmies a:x1a2:>11§§ ihose. h€:_._ was iI1(:h21rge oi' ('rash cash book; and its m21i1'1te:n.2'-11."1c;7<: :a:.i'.xd"'e1I's:) prepar21t'.io1:1 of thfi? saﬁary biils and oiiher 21I.l.o\=vf21£.1:?s3s'of1 off1'(:ors and {he s%;a!"i"a1"1.d di.sE3L1:'s€1}1t:n{'._ of i_iio'sa1_2:1'y'V'to' 1:116 'V staff. OE' c:?:ou:°se; 'tho p1'()se(:u'ui:on. fdid ﬁo_i,"~ :_1i.e1'1'Vkfs,/;1ii§,ii doczmnozat. showing aiiocatiori_o'f7._'?1L1t.i€s to ddi!.]'s.rem§jV s"{.afJ" --. L I}"i€II}bf31'S in the PHC. If_erus:«3.1 ;;;g1gﬁ:e:«;1;_ appeai indicates 1,1122'; the looking into an L1I2II1.':1'I'k€d docL1nzsrs£, found. is styied as office order 'dgﬂsd though under the said ofﬁoo ciddoties entrusted to the accxtsodhas but no evidence: in proof of the said doc'L1rI1.era.t. ;sA';;:(;a._u}~;éd by the prosecution. It is for this reaso12.R"i11:é: 1e2.:i'r1"1é-d «.'?s}Iagistra1,e proceeded to hold. that dV'~.ldhezv-V./._.°'p;iosog:L1tion""has not satdisfactomy proved the 13:3t.i*a;:i.si.'o1£}'ni.ofthe various duties 'to ihe accused. Porusai of ih:%".._jL1dgii_:€::2i:.::'"ﬁnder appeal i.11dicat'os 'zlaat {he Iearméd Mag§i,_s1.r2;{.é: not made any e1"1deavo'r io ctonsider the oral.

"~r3vi.c1E:I1"<:;s:__ é1V-'a1'1af:31t-3. on 1"eoo3"cE in this 1"eg_;ard and its efibcl. on "C'i..}1Ve fj*:<)of"<>'f*;.}1e e31'1i.r:.:si.:11<-3111 of the duties to 11:13 a(:cus<:?d. EV, U:

31. A5; §}<';%§" S€'.£2ii{)I1 59 <>i' E1163 Izlciiazz i§=1vi.€i€:':s;7e ,:'&<?.t.q all fézcis, e:><;<::r2p't[ the C{)I'1T.f3'I.'1i,S of {i(_)CL1.I3'1t'.§1§,S.; mzxy be p1"<>\?:j_d by c}m..1 csvidence. It; is the weiim se1.E...'1€<<i p:*<:";jpc)s-:it.i{:r1": of E2.we*vf::}';2_1*;.~.a.

faci. C,'i.':?J"1 be proved either by orai ev§d<:::1{:e or by _r_,i'Li~cL1afi1"::: r:1'*L'-2:1I'js.<-- eviderlce. If 21 faci, recerded in a w_ri:1.t.i;:_x1 C§QC:l.ifT£6,,f1:*LT., iI}'1:§ .1.aw of evide;1ce prohibits E}T1(: oral ev'id€i'1<:e:i]é.s~'t0 '1:};1_<:"~c_:{)Lr1t.V&:.r:i%*--..;;: ' such docuzmr-:n'{.. I--Iowever. e1'f21<i€i~.._c:an 2850 be p_1'O*.éev;§.H}gy..3oraI , L evidelute wi'th0L1.t. placing 'd§CTi11ﬁ€1:1_i.é}Yyw;§Vid€£1C€¢ In the case on handv not place any reliance on f,h€fV~Q"fﬁ(Tf3 '"U1';ié'Ii but U16 prosecutioq of various duties Therefore. in our opinioﬁ-!'&t:h§§ Earned Magistrate that since the OffiC€VVV'U§f"a('i'€vI' 988, a true copy of which is «_ fblvtﬁfl hi' the re'Cer{;1_:_§___&b..as not been marked and no witness ' sp--Qker1«2_1_b011t the said docatnlerﬁt, the prosecuiion has /7 f3.i_1'ed id 'pi"0x?€;a:: ént1*'L:si:.1nent, i$ pe'1'vers<i. ﬁgagyféléi, the iearned '-4 '2'.

§»_..... -

MagEst.1*'2;té'4h21s omitted 1.0 <:?0r1sider 1:.1'1e oral evidence Q ., ii;w'ai_.121b1'e on record in this regard .

12. PVVs.3, 8 to 9, 19 ész. 20 are the e111p10y€es of PEG. Aye::11,1r. All of them haw' sieléeci in i.h.t3i1f eXam.i11at.i.0n~i.n-- E6 chi.e.§' Ehat: ai. {he 1'e1e.\:'am. §2%(Ji}'1i. Of i.i_:'1";e. {he 21(7(T?..§S€*{§ was xx;c>:'E~;i11§; as }"*'E)A in the said PEEC Elﬁd he was §l."1(ZhE1E"g€ sf {he Cash section: he vmas ;:a'1"epa:"ihg {he hiﬁs {Of -saEaz"y' ahsi eéher allcms-'a1h{:<:>.s of the staff and he wzzxs chsﬁ41'ib11t.iI1g E,he.V_s;3,_1a:.ry ex:-'e1*y month to the staff. We heme. perused» :__Ehe"

eXaI11i1:1atien of each of these wﬂnesses e1nd"we-- .}'QL:1?:..d '-';h:.5:._i the accused has not eross--exam'merE. 21:33; 3:51" {:hese"'2VitfiessesA on this aspect of the I:r1at:i.er.V '«._The:'e'-j.s' no ciei'1iVs3.4.V0i' E_}?aesAe _ facts in the cross-exan1i'r1a§,i.0n' 1he.'e'.fi'<?:1'e'nL:e} of these witnesses that the acteu was i;heh'ez.:'=ge" 01" the cash section and he was 1"espo._nsib1e A.{c>r..d'isbu seni'e:?d."ef----t:he salary to the staff membe_1fs_ m4Q11fh"V.had ._1*e;if1's;i1*aed un~C0:1trover1ed and uﬁVeha1iengeI;':V._»All 'ovf_j'ii1.e1:3 being the eo--emp10yees along with thesce1_'1sed.. 'ha'ti' ho reason {0 depose falsehood 7 . _ agai:;1s"'L the accused. If really the accused was not ineharge hof e?a.sh" se(:i,iQ_13 and was not resp0'hsi.b1e for disbursement of V' the. sz;¥g';;'r§;,"'f'A'hse: §.:1ix1imLm1 *;.hi11gg§_ he eouid have done was to si.1gges'L.i':.r.) Lﬁhese witnesses that he was not i1.1eha1'ge of the ea-sh éu;1d1~\x,ras not 1'esp0r1si.b1e for diSb{I1"S@II1€I}'{. of the salary. that. miI1imum thing has not been done during the {.§E'US3.'_-3~€XE1I}1i.I1a1.iOZ1 of 1';;hese witnesses. In fact P\V11~{');".

. 'gr' M.-

E7 K:"i_shr1z21 M2;.1r¥:'.}1},a whe WEIS the Meciézragi C}i"§'ic':e1* ex": 'the e:ia,ie when ihe €1CC?.."z:-Stifé re::'p(>r1ed for ciu.1,y in FPIC. Ay21m.'1'r_,--,_h21s sizzieci thaé. EiC',C'.'£iS€C§ was er1i.rL1ss'ie.<:1 with. {he <;iu.1.y ef p:_9ep:"i;<ijfi;§ the salary bills and other aiiowzmees of the :~:i1'.:zi'I'f"V2w:_e:VV1'c'i." ' \-V{)1"k of d§SbL1I'S€Ii1(i'i1'£' of the salzlr}/.--ar1c§.<Qt.he1* a14l'lG*;§¥;1e1i(:f:_$V{(1 aii 'the :':staff. He has also "the p;"epa'ri11g the bilie for sa121;V"y_ émd o"t.';he.I" Va?:.11.:)\».r'2'uf1(.'e5; 'and * mair11;aini:r1g eassh books. "vi.s"'--2gbseILEtie1}T CE'0SS~ exami11a!;i011 to PW.1'i fghe volumirlous Ora} evidence plgxeerj by ﬁe" has not been Challenged wg~1,1I.d Clearly esi.abI.ie11_ivhe"V{:1fii accused. The accused dur1n_g "v--;m;~;. Seetien 3:3 ex-.p.c. has adnamed fiagzf. as 1'*'DA_i'13_::PPIC, Ayanua: he was ine11arge of «_ the~e§ashfA'eeCti0:ri was alse entrusted with the duty of '€1§S{ITibLlﬁ.D1'l<.#f'S3Eii£11'y to ail the s1aff3.1;1ae}1e<:1 10 the PHC.

13. . }'x§.._tF1is siage. it rleeessary to note as to what is the V._e£"fee1', "'}f jSL1Ch answers by the accused under Section 313 "ii" {Zf;*'V.}'3";«fC. The Apex C<)z,:r*L. in the ease of Mohan. Singh (Supra) hiaei an <)ccasic)n to consider this aspect of the rzmtter. In E-7'arass~f2?' &z 30, it has observed 1;hus:--

E8 2"?' 'l"h.e ei.aI,eii1eiii. made iii gie§e;"'ie<:: ':33; the acéirizseci i,mcler Seetéeii 3'13 Q1,-nfﬁtco can {_T€?I'§21§i'.il'__\} be li£1l:i(;*i} aid of is lerid (.tI'€'{'lf3I"I(1€f {.0 the evideiie-1:} led by the p1"()SC.'.CLlUO1"i, but only a part. of Si:}(:'}';-.''''' . SlI;1l,€EI"I"i€I1l. uizdei' SecE'.i0:r'1 313 0.1' the Cicieie V Criminal P1'0ceclure cannot' be I11E1Clf:'"''ih,é'~,Sél§E . basis of his; COI"1ViCl,.l0i1. The law (}l'1"£.h€,?_Si;1"fJj§.vCl._iSvl":

alinoei, eeiiled that $1.1-1J[€1l'1€I}'[l':"}1l'lU.Bl' Secéiivciii .13 C1";P.C.. of the 21ceL1seCi_e'a..ii eiifh-er be "if_"|S3'l'l~f.:3(,»l«~..,ViV1V'V1 whole or in part. it may be tovlyely on. the i1i1CEtil.'p21TI.01;§?'~..paflilulafxlillﬁl jﬂaiemeliii' if the exculpatory peiri. l'Qiinld.Vijle:3aelfaleel (tn the basis of the evidence lE3:f;J1""L)'_\,'.iL:1'"1€l]?lfO$éCl,§li'd1ﬁ.f ll "TE-'lie'si;aiemen.i 5; the accused under Se(i'tieri'f3137Cr.I3--..C;--.. is 'riei...55ubeta11tive piece of e_Vid--.e3iee."lf"*- -'used for appreciating eificleiiee ledebyVihe"«}6r0seeui,i.on to accept or _ _rejec{'~it.V' I.1;_i'f-3, i>._oi5'v~ever, not a substiiuie for the evidence "of itevlieproseeuiion. As held in the case Kant by this C0u:rt., ii' the exculpatory V T' statement is found to be false and the led by the piesseeuticm is reliable, the z ll'1§i11lp'g1?;{)l;'y pan. of his siatemerii. can be taken aid. of to lend ass;u'ra'r1(:e :0 the evidence of the 'pi'0sec.iiii.0n. If the prosecution eiziderme cioee not inspire e0:1f'l€ienC:e £10 siieiaiii the c<)rii..:'ieii.0ri of the &.(§CL1E-Sfid, the izieulpaiory part of his w M | W, 5 . gs».

l9 ssiziremerii: under fﬂeciiozi 3&3 C2r.i5*.Ci ::":2:mri.oi. be macle Elli'? seaole l3a$is of his eo1"1ViC.iior1.

14. ll] the lighé of {he aioreseiiei pmiciples oi"l;1w_':ll23id down by the Apex Courii, l'il'1(;'.I"€ is no di.ll'iou.lty_ "reliance on the answers given by the 8€£.'»'..1_E§'<Z?§l "--.,<fl'L1.I'in.r.§' eXar:m7riai.ior1 under S€iC{i.()E} 313 oi} Cr.},?,Cv. 4'-_O£.' e;%ou1:sv':?_. .l observed by the Apex Court, fllV"1~Ei.1'_1"lC1.,i1ll"}:--1'L'C')'1"'}' SfE:1»€é£'l1eI1l the accused given d.iiri.ng the eXarrii§19a'iio:'1 'Li1r1der'Seo:ioI1 313 Cr.P.C. by itself cannot; s_oleV_basie,'€e..record conviction, as it does not become SL1bSi£1Z1'ili_/;€ipi€§CE3' 'o.§<e\%:'dei1Ce. in the Case on ha1Id;,"'Si';1oe the §p1°oseeui:i--o:}..b}} voluminous oral evidence haslllelsiablisherl lihve eriirusiment of various duties to the zitciised while.VWorkinlg_. as FDA in PHC, Ayemur, the answers gkeh _a.c'oi1"s.el(j~ during his examination under Secretion 313 'C-2i.P.fC. lends assiirance to the Case of the ._pro:5fe7eu;f.io1i,__ l~loxlvev.e.2?.,«'i,he learned Magistrate has declined '_[}lTc51CE§ r'e1i21;'ics€:_o:1 ihe answers given by the accused during M? a 1'7?

-J E ,1' l'1'I'.Slhi32§E1}.7£llfYlj3,T<'i{)IJlVllililﬁi' Section '$33'; of Cr.P.C., merely on the ;"§:wv g:*()uli':{l 'i3h21i' ihe}; are not s'L1l:)s1an?..ive eviclence. The refusal ' "on the _pi'ar£. of the learned Magistrate to p§ac:e reliarioe on the zigzag"-?e'.:'ss giver: E33; '£'.§':e aC('i.iS(3Cl c§ui~ing the exaniiziaiioii under 2:3?"

See.£43'<:>r1 3'13 {j"E"'E-"}K{¥/'Iv is-3:; e<):':*::'1*a:.r3»' in the 2211:.' laid: d0W':": by {he Apex Ce>1,1:'t, in the 2-zf'c)re:s21ic1 C1€?('iiSi.()I1. 'E"here§0:°<:é, there is ampie evi::§e;';<:e zmd (tir<:'ur:1Si.2mees in hgﬂd 1-1{1V:«.1_ "'--«t'E';e pr<)se<:u1i<3'1:1. has 1:_m)ved the emnzsilllem of Ve1x"iQi£s C§?.};'t,'i':3'S~ t;.b--*.e the aeeussecl, In the light of the. evi_<ie»:1r:e 016? reetwﬁi» vL?e _Ea.Q1d V E:}::e1.1. the accused was kept: ir1(3h£1t."g"C-Qi':i'h.eJ {:.fé.1:S.]jr1"§$$tV;'f-ii)E'£¥"§$i:§-.£:I\:i,:

he was €I1U"LIS'[.€d with Ehe. duiy t;E:1)rc%;j'21ri;1g the 'r;§i._ii«::--..Jf<.>z-* the 2 L salary and other a1}<J\_va11<:es_..0f'~1'h'e._» ste1fi"=a;_1ci @1130 the disbLufsemen.t, of the sailéﬁ-'y' -eVefy--,»mont:h. "E 5. "F1":e.V11e}§:1:--.as13;ect reqLai.redft.Q be1e.o'nsir:Iered is, as to Luhether the "aéc1;1se-df~_V:,L3u$.i:;i=r;u.s'i'0dy "(ff the salary and other allowajlees £'§.?;.e nloﬁefl of December 1991?

-\%""-

16.u' the ease of the prosecution, the aeC=cf:$edLA 1}1isapprc>p}'iaied some portion of the a1n0un1; dmwn.

'1'";fOmV the towards diSbLl}'S€1}'1€f1'L of the :3a.1ary and s:;s1,he.t" 211fei,vari_ees of the séexff for {he m<31'11.h eaf D€(;i€I1'1bE'.1' 3 1.993' '5PWL:ﬁiV'e1'1L1g0pa1. who was admititedly w01*k1'r1g " SEJC irxihe said 0i'i'iee assisting the accused in the cash ":3e'c':'ieiA<>11, it is; aiso the de'fe:ne.e of the acxtuseci f_,hz,1i'. PW. 3 3 xvizo V Lét011e{t1,e:z:i Ehe mzmegg from {he t:1'e;;LsL1ry on 0} 01.1992 did not hahd 0V(;-'33" the s~:.a111e to him fo;' the }.)t':i°pd<_~;e of di$t:rih:.:'t.?;on. to the sstaif m.en'1§3e1"sa. 1-"W113 in his oral evidence has stated that (313 01.01.1992 after eoi1eet.i:';g the money he V11V21§1:1.ed over the same to the 2--1e::e'used and the £1(?C11S6C1§V.'1SS{.1F3*'§: 3:1:

ae1<nowiedgeme'r1t for hz-wizig received the sa.i_rﬁE~amo~a:r1't_'a$ per"

Ex.P.9. He has also Stated in his e::§<a11':1i11;-ﬁiohiiijé4eh1e1?.tthat,f on 01.011992 severe} staff :Ihe:_11'r)ers§.eo11eet.ee:i'5!::h,eir Séglatry and other akiowahees from the their signatures in the Jgiven the details of various_staf1" On that day.

He has did not collect the salary on 3that__'d_ay'.E' 'oxfvttziesftjg has been subjected to lerigthy e'ros3~eixéixninatioh} however, he has denied the suggest:i.oh»;_)i1t:. to high "t.171_é3Let he did not hand over the money toV_~d3.e }1_e___o.1so denied that Ex..P.9 is a concocted ' __d0eument.. PWSB. 4. 8 to 9 and 19 & 20 in '1.hei.;' eVt?id1e'::ee;.Vh21ve stated that on €11.01. 1992. t.h.e:~,r eouid not eo11'e(:t't:11e1f Sa.1.a1"y and wh.er1 they came to the cash section A'ui.a--.4_.02V§C1.1992 to eoﬁeet their salary for the month. of ljI)'beee:hbe:* 1991, the accused was not fotzhd there and PW.13 told them. that the keys of the Aimimh safe with the accused V 2-mil i;%2£3:*e,=i"c3:"c:_ the aseiiziry ca':1i1_:>E' be paiti is iiieém ;:m(§ i'.he'rei'(>1"c: 21}: 01' them werii back. Or: fihi? §3L1{":C':€f3fdi.'l1§§ day 211550 E.he:'r salary was not paid. iéZ:<;c:epf;' S('31"I'§€;j% SLl§,3;g€'.f-3iI§{)I1S7}V.;1':TT; the c:1"c)ss~eXan1ina1Eioni no CIiI"C?1I1I"E1S{.E1I1(?('3 is bmu.ghi.__;'t5£ii.@i:3._:E1115 evider1c:e io indicate iha't' the accused was 1'}O'7§"'{iI1,'{_.i:'U,Si;€~3.:(.f1 With"

the r11o'r1.ey on 01.01.1992 for 'the §§_L1r;ic).$e} 0i7ii»c§'iSbu1's£é113e£i£., f The learned. Magisireiic ai_'i.er»'1'-*:_f;br1firi.gto i.hr:»'°evi§:ie11cé; €313 record has £1{}'i'iCE}d that the pr0$'v€§c:.i_.x'1:"tii.()_i1 I1v€"1Es.Y'i:v<:)E1V':€i><i%1:Vf§I1ir1.€3d all the staff who Colleciirird 3.01.. to prove that the accuseddisirib.Ll.§i?dV day. The learned that Ex.P.9 did noi see i'hc§ .1igiji;Qf 20 months, held that Ex.P.9 'is 'Q01.' 3Vré'iAi_abl(é"'décmiient. In our opinion, having regard toiiiiev.'i11cQri3isi.§i*1i stand of the 3.ccused in his dejfkéiaceﬁlic qLléS1,.iVQ:Iji"-RS to whether E2-;.P.9 is genuine or not, ' «:i€)'cs HQ'(*3.'SStii{]1€ much importance. No doubt I-'W.13 by 'p:'O'duCi:§gV."EZX;PV,9 wanted to save himself from the aceusaiiion ihai, i1c?;gdi'ci moi hand ever the money to the accused on 2 1..iN992. It: is in the (éVid€'I1(.'.€ on record that cheques by the i:reasu'ry was enciorsed by the 'rr;<3dica1 0fi"i.ce.r in iifavciaii" {sf PW.1_3 2:-and PW.i3 \2\'(:*'i1i. Lo m:ra:~3ii1'y anci CO11€Ci€{i 33 1'nc)r1ey (%m:e:*e<:§ L1:1.<ie,1" ihe CE'1E?{£E.I{EE:;a ii. is téze 54221}; ef E'3\?€.1.3 that after (:oIIe<:£i1'1g 1:3.1or1e}; from the I.}°eas51.1}"y he ha1.'1'1dec§_-0_ve1* the same to 'ihe aec:t..asec§ and in proof ef that. é1ctr£:(3':*§:§ir1,§{',i.éi3, PWJ3. the aceussed issued reeeipifackneurIedge1*1§ieni,...aSe-fie?"

{i>s;.P.9. No doubt. ix}-3.9 wzzs.-"p'1e'e.«:1ue,ed Vébefhre' I1§\Ies1igaE4i11g Oiﬁeera" l'1€21f'§y' 21be'L1t.ii1'e;m:hsVA' ai'Le1°"

regisi1"a1.i0r1 of the case, it is 'eh.is stage that, even as pep the "ih§..}§ear'11ed counsel for "the. aeeuse::f,V 6g{:"{h.e"~.13.a?;;;5i&;; .(4)ﬁi"'Vie{V1'..:'€>é.C.£}II1p1:;1i.I1i lodged by Dr. 'I'oravL e;1s:e_. as against PW18 and _ '1I?W._al-31'héldwﬁeen arraigned as E1C(7LIS€Civ"a'f"{.hCV.':iI'1itV§é{.1"Stéii,{>€';. t.1':ere:'7ete. at that stage. he was not expected t.o §?~Limish.4"em.9;1;ei'1aEs in defence of his ease. Ti1erefere.A=heeappea1*sV'ie""have not produced Ex.P.9 at the ear1Ee$t..3;)0in{" time. is necessary to note that with V' '*'3fCgE.'t1Td:'[Q---EX;P.9, iE,"i's"*E'he ease of the accused that by force, he was r:3éi'd:e.%~e.i,:.i3' e_xee1.:t.e E-X.P;9. By this, if is <:}ea.'r that the eehiegjzisé'affix;R9 are in the h£1Hd\R?Yi[EI1g of the accused and it bears __1"::'e-_S';g:11ai.L1I'e. The accused has not Come out with *.::1ny c:"<)_nE1.,1"e1.e Sug;§gestio1'1 as to when and under f3:,?1f1::1"~._€:i:*{:1m1e1.a1'1ee:3; E1x.P.9 was exeeu.t.ee'i by him. Mere '34 eL.ig;geei.iciI1e in zine C3I'(}SS-ifxatniii£1i,iCJI] 'G3; iieeéi ea':mei, be eciizsinteci as eL.:bsi.a.1'11i've evéeicinee, Abseltlteiy no C§;reL.1ms't.an.Ce \V2':i.':'> bifoizgifit. oui on record {,0 iI"1fE§{?Ei1'{3_'§'~hV€it3' he was foyeed to write dowiu the ércmiems of E1x.I£3.9.--:-§_.11d"£Q' . his sig.1:1ai'.L1;:e t.here011. When the (:§,111't.e'1'1i.s"<"iif» __{%;12f.f5';«9 ﬁaxe zid.m.it§.ed1y in the haiiciwriiing of 211?; acé_(?.ue'ed';..ihei'e v.r§'1:s__ i'2(:;~ need to subject. Ex.1-3.9 f<);:'iex:in1mai.i0ii by?Hhginieixxrriiizag expert. Therefore, the learned is juvetified in doubting the seizure of theAnV"A1ati.er, the learned Magistrate is that the defence by force is the learned Magistrate is not sfiified genuinenees of Ex.P.9 only on the gr0{md' ihai not see the light of the day for ., ,.¢.,abe.ii't 1n0ni.hé;'v*----Ti*11s ease of the p1'0seeuti01'1 is Further (§'i.}ffC}bTO'f_3.i?d.,__b},f the very answer given by the accused 313 of C1'.P.C. To Question No.99, the aeeuéedihass stated that on the previmms day namely. an he iizmdeci over the ur1~«disbu.1*sed amoum;

U gﬂong with the key and the ieave ieiier 10 Dr. 'i7<)ravi. He has also ssi;a€.ed to the vairieue q'L:esi;.i0ns. put [V Ex.) {.11 1:: him in the €.X21[1'1.iI1E-3.1.i(}§E emder Sechen 3 '13 of Cr.E31C. i:";a'{.9 on €}i.O1..i992 he disstributed the 82111113; to sseme ef the staff who ezmae tee collect the Sa12.i'ry on that day. if a{te<}tdi1ig§~te the accused he disi.:'ibuE.ed the sexier}-', to Some ofihe'st:3,f.f_'t;if:__ _ 01.01.1992, the meney eeiieeted by PW», £3 fiféiﬁi must have been handed over the hirri,' IiT_'1':1.e'11ey. had" n.e1d"-bee'§1A handed over to accused, he ceuld I1dt'._11:8£'='C cE1e't.:ih;;tedV'§ the salary 'Le so'm.e of the staff. The aizsxver' the end of the day, he handed dove}; the salary amount along with the key of thg...'!%1.mVierahA't.e *1'e:'9;izi, who was the unit. head, had handed over the mch'"6';7' L0:.Vj?h€ﬁé§jC:cu'9CCi. '#t11d'**vi.i1e'§ accused disti*ib'u.ted the salary to "s4ome_ end the balance um-disbursed amount whee' in his ei;s%i;Qdy. Thus, the evidence on record placed t,hedp"ros_e_ct:i.io11 and the answer of the accused 'dii1'ihg»_e>{ahfiii1atien under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. beyond 1*'ee.sen2ibie"%: detiht. esstablishes the entrt1.stment of the meney to the :é;e«V£::":sed and the control and domain exercised by the 2 A3(I",(T-!,.1'S€Ci' ever the said 1i;1on.e'y 011 O}.OE..1992. It is in the 'exIide'1iceé on record that $0011 aﬁ.e1f the éiI}'1()LiI.1[ W213 received ""i':'0I.n the U'i38LS'l,1.F}-"', the S£1}"{1€ was not erit,e:'ed in the cash 2% $300k. as; per the E{zm'1a't.21ka §7'i'1.1e'm<':e Code. The zzrnamzé. received {mm the treasury c)L1gE1t' to have been e:z'1t,erec¥ in the cash book, S§z.1'1i1a1'iy, the 'm1d'is5bL1ree.c§ sseﬁary a:z10;.j;n1..._ 35,1550 should have been entered in the Cash 'r'egisst.er 21_}ﬁ£d"i;':f he ve been brought to the I1OLi{?.€3 of the Limit.he21ei".;1E,'*the end of the day. Pexrusal of' the cash reg:ie';e1§ j::1£;_::*1«é;e:ACi'~--2is' ..Ex.T{1_Q' ir1dic:at;e::3 that at the end of 'the.__day 6;: 01.01 i1o':';3:jt:E1'* entry regardring undissburseci ;tn1et1n.t;:tw'V2iS nor the Signatu::'e of the t111tt_"hea(.1:A atvtheﬁend of the day. Exctept 1.he__a11sweA1j_ j.-Tlng examination. under Seetief1 of the day on «t;n{titisb'L1rsed salary to the unit head,' a.bs_0iu};e1y=.1v1VC)aeVi1"r:i1fr1stance is brought out by the accused '1;o p.rohztb1isepjL1i1e said ease. According to the ' ,e;nC1 u3h.i1e"p_f0eeeding on leave, he handed over the money to "¥3r;.t"1*om's;:a.. V';=".Pxt this stage, it is I1€'C.€S55E11'}' to note the arg'z.1..n'i'ejntV of the learned eourxeel. According to the teamed "eo--»,;1:sé:, the I1weSt::%gat:i11g Officer has given clean ehit to h":Pi7V.13 though fmxn the initi:>:} steage he had been aliraigned as the accused on the basis of the aliegettioxl made in the v"&'.*f. , (:0::1'pIair1t.. The very a.n.swer g-jagivezi by {the 23,e<:us-;ed te q'L2e:3§..ic3;'1 E\I<:r.99 is; in the rgatzne of giving; a eiearl <;§h--i_'_L ta PWJ8' 'i"1"1e aemzeed himself has given dear:

when he has said 'é.haz'. he handed ever {he saiaury to unit. head and not £0 PW. 3:' find fa'L1i¥; with in\Ies3i.iga1.1'ng Officer in the alrray of accused. The°i3.};)se1x?é1£ejo1"2_(ii? EI'1_e""}e.3Ii'ned "

Magist.1'ate that the accused w.as"<.nCf_V enLrL13i;edVAV.'Lvit11 the money" on 01.01.1992 a1:ui.d* :eg;'::.:~eated document is contrary to me Vevidefiee* ie§:eQ_rd.V'. reaching this finding, the .Ee'e.rr1ed_-.V_NEa1gisf:ate.__«-ladsdedtﬁiaietely ignored the materia/1"eevied.e'nee«V':e23z1. r'ee0--rd, éiswsiich, the said finding is perverse afzd 'ted Vi;e44VSe__f"ae3'ide.

V_1_?. Qidniitied1yf_the"xaecused did not account for the =..'LE1'1'L'ii§'[)'1;1'1".§3€€.i saiafy"'arr1OL1nt. His case thai; he went on leave _fes:ﬂ 'E0 "cEajz$"'eaV1S0 cannot be believed for the simple reason ;3.«ei"'df,}_1.<=}:: KCSR, 21 Gove1'n.mem'. Employee can proceed on Ea1rt1ed Lezwe only after the sanction of such leave. in the '~.I"'e.3.$é'*~.on hand, it :3 not the case of the aeeused that earned for 10 days; had been s.;a1":et.i0I1ed £0 him by hie Unit Head. A.:E1I1iEi,e<;i1y. the ae.<:1.1sed did not report. for duty on 28 02.01. 1992 and s:.:bsec;L1er11§3; aéso he die} ho: rep-:>ri. for dtlﬁyg 'F'he;refo:"e. his absence was treateci as Lmauthorised. This unau*£.hori.sed absence aiso 21 «.::i:'c:umst,at1ee'v'ﬂy;-h»j::h indicates the gz.2i11y mind of the a,Cc:useci. The defence plea pLLIif()1"1h is also a Ltirozghmstfsnoef.'iviﬁeh missing Eink to the case of the p1'ose;:'L1t:;oh,:' the discussions made above,"i'a_our'-0};imio1';»;"ihe__lea1i§I1ed Magistrate is not just:ified in By the evicience placed on llashhesiablished both the esse111.iir'1.1 irléifsdierléts Off€I1C€:' E."£1'1d6i"

Section 409 upon by the leamed c:.ouI1se1A'i'o;""ﬁ',he" "the basic: principles of law in proof of LoffehceAunhdef"-Sehetion 409 of1PC has been set out .°"a;1d"*{héfe i"s..«absoh1L{ie1i_\;r no quarre} as to the iegal position I blow-%'i:._«j1'; hih_e's.e decisions"

have considered the case on hand in the ﬁght " "of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court cited by the K.1ea:"r.1ed COLII3-S(_'1 for the 1*esponc:E.er1t and we are Convincreci . ,_1..haé the evidence gslaceci by éhe pmsec:ui,i.or.: has proved the grt5uI1ci L0 t,ake any Ienieni, View.

7%;

L. fa1et.z,:1"n ofe:1*;:1*L1ss:;.11';er1t: 01' the 1hor1ey 1,0 the ::1£.:e;:L,:s;eci arid also ihe i'21<:t.1:1m of ;i11'isappr<>pria1.ien of the e:1$rL1st,ed rnoney by the accused since he dick moi ac:e0ur"1t for 'the same. 1n--._§.h.'iS '\fi€W' o.f1;he. rnaiier. 'the jL1.cIgh1er11, 0,? aeq"L1if.i.a1 reeto1*cEedx'b}?"--1'ehe Eearneci Magistrate is highly per"are'rse and iilega-L 'as A*::3L'11;:h; .if9 is liable to be set aside. The reespozicéent/Qee;éL1$eci"ﬁsh1§.2ib1€:, for eor1.vieﬁ,.ic:»n for {he offence under S'eei2.(iri'40§1--QI'I.If'C',, "

20. We have heard lea'::hed: e'oLif1se1 for h' the respondent with regard ﬁVo"":3e':L:'zi'eei';-;:e. Ieiecubzhits that new the respondent'./a(:c'i1sed" §;geeifh_abh0»1Ii 62 years, as such, he has reﬁ;1f_r"ed from ha5VV'r10w attained the stamsief seriidr _ei€ize'n,,"therefore, a ienient View may be taken \>viih_ fcga-rc1_tc--..serite;:tc;';' Q1' eeAu=rSe_,___j1i1. 1993 whiie charge sheet came to he 'fi]V'e'd,, the. of the accused was shown as 45 ears, Ehe1'efe1'e', -if;}y'V'i_1v(VJXA? he I"I'i1_1E-ii. have been aged about 62 years. 01:; u{hai..}:>é:e§e it can be said that he has 110w attained the 2 si.at1_;s of {he Sewer Citizen However, that iteelf wili not be ,/"-

'N '2 *7):

:3» 3:9 22, Tiie c,}fi"e1"1c:e urlcier Seei,i:'m 409 «sf 1}-'-'C p'un.isshab§e with i2'1'1;_.)':'i:'s()11mem, for life or i1IIp1"iE}O11I}"1E?1*i$'.> of either des£:ripéi.0n fer a 'izerm which E1121}? extend 3 and 21150 ffine. In the case on 1121116, the ' mis21pp1'<)pria'I.ecE the a:1"r1ou2:'1t to the itfgﬁie' '.;xf'«_ that an a1":"10L:11'{. to the time 01:

housse of the aeeuseci is"v-d1e'dbL1(:ted,'._ me of 'V Rs.61,000/- and add isVi7(>'gr1ci heziii-*j«:;..iV,_rg~fii'i»se1p131;ep.ri;at:e;i by the accused. This was in t,he'y$ee§1r had greater Va]ue. We are e11.i "'L}1ese factors in niind, in ei' 3 would be met if ihe "eon*.;ieter] for the__ offence })uni.she;b1e of IPC and sentenced to undergo Suit}:-1.1_"'}'i€3, 1ﬁ:pfi.s_O'11ﬁ1ent. for two years and to pay fine of Five Lakhs only}, in default, to 'L11idergQ REg<3_1'(;v1;s Imprisonment for two years. Aatitaaifeiiﬁlgiy. ihe appeal is aiiowed, The judgment "--da_t.ec1"1,V1';05.20o4 passed in QC. No. 355/1993 passed by 'x_L§<:eExddiéionzil Civil Judge (S1:D1";.] ané. CJM. Shimoga. ;3i:qL1it.ting the respondeni./accused for the offence mzniehalbie Lmeiexf Seemm. 409 01' IPC 515 I"1e1'eb32" -set aside. 33 "I'he :"»:;=:e:~3;3(>::d<;=.1'1.1_.,r' 21(?.(§LiS€C§ {rc3:':V:{:t.trc.% {(1}: {he <3f§Feir1c:£~: pur1issh2:1b§e uridézr Si-;'{'5{i()I1 409 of IPC. amcl he is sse:3%;',e..1:«;":é:a:i» tic;

11.t1_c:ir:z*gc> Simpie I.mpri$c)111':':e1'3i_. for '$2270 y<*3.z':z1's3 and 'z:Q_7g3a§2--

of Rss.5,00,000/~ {RL1p€<-ts Five Lakhs; onéy). §'.f"1""._§£i€.{'{':'i"_,1:1xI".; L1iEd€ITg{) Rig01:0u$ In'3p1'isc)11me11t fC>'1":{\i;b'}"3£1I'$3'. The learned !.\/I21gis1,1'at.e': ts} takt-.V_1*:eces:s9;r':;;Agiepg to secure the presence of amused a};E'e:1f:(3.C,01I'}fi'1'i1,_'hiill ti} prison i'_i«:f1.%-3 ..

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court