Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 427 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. RAJENDRA SINGH NEGI

2019-08-07

R.C.KHULBE

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. The present Government Appeal has been filed by the State Government against the judgment and order dated 14.06.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Lansdowne, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 338 of 2002 whereby the accused was not found guilty and acquitted under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 218 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 22.08.1992 the complainant- Bhagwan Singh Panchpal submitted written information to the P.S. Lansdowne with the allegations that the accused- Rajendra Singh Negi, who was the Postal Assistant and had withdrawn the amounts of Rs.2,000/- on 08.08.1989, Rs.4,000/- & Rs.3,500/- on 02.12.1989 and Rs.500/- on 21.03.1990 from the account of Bahadur Singh in Account No. 708467. Apart from that the accused made false entries of Rs.4,000/- on 09.10.1989 and Rs. 4,000/- on 14.05.1990 in the account of Bahadur Singh. The accused also misappropriated the Government fund of Rs.10,000/- till July 01.09.1990. 3. On the basis of said information an FIR was lodged on 22.08.1992. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, charges were framed on 22.07.1999 by J.M., Lansdowne, Pauri Garhwal, which they denied and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution produced PW-1, B.S. Panchpal, PW-2, Hukum Singh Rawat, PW-3, Gaya Ram Bhadola, PW-4, Tara Chand Mishra, PW-5, Bachan Singh, PW-6 Khayat Singh and PW-7 Taju Ram. 5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. 6. Learned trial court by its impugned judgment and order has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused person. Feeling aggrieved, State Government has preferred present appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 8. PW-1, B.S. Panchpal, who is the informant, stated that he was employed on the post of Assistant Postal Superintendent, Lansdowne from 1989 to 1994. The accused- Rajendra Singh was working as Postal Assistant, at General Post Office, Lansdowne. The Superintendent of Post Office, Pauri has ordered for scrutinizing of the Passbook A/c No. 708467. Upon which careful examination was made and examined the account of Bahadur Singh. Informant had given his passbook to the accused for transferring it to Delhi, and instead of transferring it to Delhi the accused transferred it to General Post Office, Lansdowne. The Superintendent of Post Office, Pauri has ordered for scrutinizing of the Passbook A/c No. 708467. Upon which careful examination was made and examined the account of Bahadur Singh. Informant had given his passbook to the accused for transferring it to Delhi, and instead of transferring it to Delhi the accused transferred it to General Post Office, Lansdowne. The accused filled up a fake withdrawal form in the name of account holder Bahadur Singh of Rs.2,000/- and received the said amount. The accused had shown false entry of deposit of Rs. 4,000/- in the passbook of Bahadur Singh on 09.10.1989, while the said amount was not deposited. On 02.12.1989 the accused also filled up a false withdrawal form of Rs. 3,500/- in the name of Bahadur Singh. On 21.03.1990 the accused also withdrawal Rs.5,00/- from the account of Bahadur Singh. On 01.08.1990 the accused also filled up a withdrawal form of Rs. 500 in the name of Bahadur Singh. 9. PW-2, Hukum Singh Rawat stated the same theory as narrated by PW-1, B.S. Panchpal. 10. In the present case, it is the allegation against the present accused that the accused had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the account of Bahadur Singh and made a false entry of Rs. 8,000/- in the ledger book at the post office., but neither any complaint was made nor any information was given by Bahadur Singh regarding the shortage of money nor he was produced before the trial court to prove this fact. Apart from that the so called ledger book in which the forged entries were allegedly made by the accused was never sent to FSL for proving the signature and hand writing of the accused. The witnesses produced during the trial court by the prosecution did not prove that the accused had made any false entry in the ledger book as stated in the FIR. The witnesses produced by the prosecution did not prove that it was the duty of the accused to maintain the passbook or ledger book regarding the account holder-Bahadur Singh. 11. As per the FIR the accused had made two forged entries regarding Rs.8,000/- in the ledger book, but the prosecution had failed to prove the signature and hand writing of the accused. 11. As per the FIR the accused had made two forged entries regarding Rs.8,000/- in the ledger book, but the prosecution had failed to prove the signature and hand writing of the accused. Without proving the signature of the accused, the court cannot reach to this conclusion that two entries as alleged in the FIR were made by the accused with the intention to misappropriate the amount. Apart from that there is no evidence on record that the accused had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the account of Bahadur Singh and misappropriated for the benefit of his own. There is no clinching evidence on record that the said ledger book was fraudulently prepared by the accused to misappropriate the said amount. 12. From the perusal of the judgment and order dated 14.06.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Lansdowne and I also came to this conclusion that there is no clinching evidence found against the present accused to convict him under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 218 IPC. 13. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, acquitting the respondent, I am of the view that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused person more or less beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 218 IPC. 14. Since the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order, hence, I am of the view that the Government appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Government appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and order dated 14.06.2003 passed by the trial court is hereby affirmed. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be transmitted to the Court concerned.