Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1755 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Lal Chand

2002-10-24

H.R.PANWAR

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.7.1987 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (to be called the trial Court' hereinafter) whereby the trial Court found respondent - Lal Chand not guilty for the offence punishable under sections. 409, Indian Penal Code. The State has preferred the appeal against his acquittal. 2. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor, perused the judgment of the trial Court and carefully gone through the record of the case. 3. The accused-respondent-Lal Chand was tried for the offence under sections. 409, Indian Penal Code. The case as set up by the prosecution is that on 10.9.1988 while the accused-respondent was engaged with the postal department as Sub Branch Post Master he handed over a mail and cash-bag to DW- 1 Mahaveeer Prasad (extra departmental mail carrier, for short `E.D.M.C.'). The same was carried to Dabali Rathan post office; but, on opening the bag at Dabali Rathan post office it was found empty. The prosecution levelled allegation against the respondent that while despatching the cash-bag the cash amount of Rs. 1,400/- was to be in the bag but the empty bag was sealed and despatched to branch Post Office, Dabali Rathan. The said bag was opened at Dabali Rathan post office in the presence of PW-3 Bhagwan, PW-4 Mithan Lal and PW-8 Satya Narain, it was found sealed but did not contain the amount noticed above. The respondent was charge-sheeted. It was alleged that the respondent was entrusted with the cash-amount, he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount. Before the trial Court, the prosecution witness PW-1 Mahaveer Prasad, PW-2 Ram Kumar, PW-3 Bhagwan Maheshwari, PW-4 Mithan Lal, PW-5 Richhpal Singh, PW-6 Ram Kumar, PW-7 Charan Singh, PW-8 Satya Narain and PW-9 Chuna Ram were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. 4. On appreciation of the evidence produced before the trial Court, the trial Court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused- respondent. In the instant case, the petitioner was not the carrier of the cash-bag; but, he was assigned the supervisory duty at the branch post office. The cash-bag was despatched along with the mail. In the instant case, the petitioner was not the carrier of the cash-bag; but, he was assigned the supervisory duty at the branch post office. The cash-bag was despatched along with the mail. From the evidence produced before the trial Court, the trial Court came to the conclusion that even after handing over the mail bag containing the cash-bag to DW-1 Mahaveer Prasad, the extra departmental mail carrier who had the seals and keys of the post office and even after having handed over the cash-bag to the carrier, the carrier had an opportunity to open the cash-bag and re-seal it since the keys and seals of the post office were with him. 5. I have gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the cash-bag being found empty on opening at Dabali Rathan witnesses Bhagwan, PW-3 and Satyanarain, PW-8 have not put signatures. The matter was reported to the police belatedly. From the prosecution evidence, it appears that on the slip prepared of the cash it was returned to Mahaveer Prasad and not to the respondent. This defence theory further gets strengthened from the fact that had it been prepared by the accused-respondent it would have been in the hand-writing of the accused-respondent. But, on analysis by the hand-writing expert, it was found that the hand-writing was that of Mahaveer Prasad. From the record it appears that the loss occasioned to the State was made good as the amount was deposited vide Ex.P/7-A with the postal department. Having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court justifiably reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondent. No error can be found with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court.In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed *******