Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 198 (TRI)

Khagendra Acharjee v. State of Tripura

2022-04-18

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 399 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for setting aside the judgment dated 27.01.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 03(1) of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur, affirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, Udaipur in case No. GR 347 of 2011 convicting the petitioner under Section 403/409 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to pay the said amount to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 403 of the IPC and further sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- defaulting to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC with a direction to run both the sentence concurrently. 2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of GR 347 of 2011. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee was Head Clerk cum Cashier of the Sub-Registry officer, Udaipur and accused Sankar Sarkar(now deceased) was Sub-Registrar and accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee was made as cashier by the then DM & Collector by order No. F.1(12)/DR/S/2000/92-95, dated 01.02.2010 with effect from 25.01.2010 and accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee has taken over the charge of cashier from earlier cashier Sri Uttam Kr. Das 25.01.2010 and an audit team after audit submitted a report on 03.06.2011 that an amount of Rs. 23,04,900 collected as registration fee, searching fee, copying fee etc. from the month of January, 2011 to May, 2011 was not deposited in the treasury and on verification of cash book, they found cash Rs. 1,60,200/- only was lying in chest which is kept in the Almirah of accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee and accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee committed cheating and misappropriated the government money and accused Sankar Sarkar (now deceased) was negligent and liable and, accordingly, stating the above mentioned fact along with other fact informant filed FIR before the O.C. RK. Pur P.S. 3. 1,60,200/- only was lying in chest which is kept in the Almirah of accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee and accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee committed cheating and misappropriated the government money and accused Sankar Sarkar (now deceased) was negligent and liable and, accordingly, stating the above mentioned fact along with other fact informant filed FIR before the O.C. RK. Pur P.S. 3. On receipt of FIR, the officer-in-charge of R.K. Pur P.S. has registered the case No. 244/11, dated 09-06-2011 under Sections 420/409/109 of IPC and, thereafter endorsed the case to SI Subrata Barman for investigation of the case. Thereafter, again the case was endorsed to the SI Rajib Saha (CID) on 14-07-2011 as per order of the SP (CID) and he received the case docket from the O/C, R.K. Pur P.S. 4. After completion of investigation I.O. submitted the charge-sheet vide No. 289/2012 dated 31-08-12 under Sections 120(B)/420/409 of IPC against the above mentioned accused persons. 5. On receipt of the charge-sheet cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 120(B)/420/409 of IPC was taken and the relevant process was commenced and the accused copy has been supplied to the accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee under provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and as per report of O.C. Dharmanagar P.S. the trial court passed an order on 01.09.2015 in respect of accused Sankar Sarkar, which is as follows: 'Received a report from the O.C. Dharmanagar P.S. and stated accused Sankar Sarkar has died on 28.04.2013 and a xerox copy of death certificate of the said accused was annexed with the report. Heard Ld. APP. From the death certificate it appears that accused Sankar Sarkar has expired on 28.04.2013. I am satisfied with the report of O.C. Dharmanagar P.S. and accordingly the action against the accused Sankar Sarkar died with his death. Make necessary entry into TR and now case will proceed against the another accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee.' 6. That subsequently upon hearing both the sides as well as on perusal of the case record charge was framed and the accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee was examined for the commission of the offence Punishable Under Sections 409/403 of IPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused in Bengali language in the open Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, claiming himself to be innocent. 7. 7. After hearing argument of both sides, the trial court has framed the following points for determination: Points for Determination: (i) Whether accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee being a public servant(Head Clerk cum Cashier) was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 21,44,700/-? (ii) Whether accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use and/or committed breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 21,44,700/-? 8. PW 30 Sri Sabyasachi Singh the then Sub-Registrar, Udaipur Sub-registry officer deposed that from the month of October, 09 to May, 2010 he was posted as Sub-Registrar in the Udaipur Sub-registry office and during that period their casher Sri Uttam Kr. Das was transferred as per order of DM & Collector and accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee has been posted as Upper Division Clerk in the month of January, 2010 in the said office and after transfer of Uttam Kr. Das, Khagendra Acharjee was given responsibility of cashier in the said office after 4/5 days of his joining in the said office and U.D.C. cum cashier in the custodian of the cash book and Khagendra Acharjee has taken over the charge of cashier from Uttam Das by putting signature in the cash book and the signature of Khagendra Acharjee is already marked as Exbt. 17/2 and the signature of Uttam Kr. Das is already marked as Exbt. 17/1 and he has also signed as a registrar in the said cash book and his signature on the said cash book is already marked as Exbt. 17/3 and after taking over charge of cashier Khagendra Acherjee himself used to maintain the said cash book and from 25.01.2010 to 27.04.2011 the cash book was written by accused Khagendra Acherjee and the same are in his hand writing and the said cash book is already marked as Exbt. 17 and from 03.01.2011 to 27.04.2011 in the cash book in the payment column side i.e. remittance to SBI column it is mentioned that the remittance is nil in every page and on 01.02.2010 he has passed and order to accused Khagendra Acherjee for taking over the charge of cashier w.e.f. 25.01.2010 afternoon and the said order is already marked as Exbt. 11 as a whole and his signature is already marked as Exbt. 11 as a whole and his signature is already marked as Exbt. 11/2 series and on 21.01.2010 accused Khagendra Acherjee joined as U.D. clerk in the said Sub-Registry office and the said joining report is already marked as Exbt. 10 as a whole and the signature of accused Khagendra Acherjee is marked as Exbt. 10/2 and his signature on the joining report of Khagendra Acherjee as receiving officer is marked as Exbt. 10(iv) and the charge list with file index of cashier post handed over by Uttam Kr. Das to accused Khagendra Acherjee is already marked as Exbt. 12 as a whole and the signature of Uttam Kr. Das is already marked as Exbt. 12/3 and the signature of accused Khagendra Acherjee is already marked as Exbt. 12/2 and custody of cashier of Sub-Registry office is cashier P.W.30 indentified accused Khagendra Acherjee before the Court. 9. The above mentioned evidence is corroborated by P.W. 4 Sri Uttam Kr. Das, earlier Cashier cum UDC of the office of Sub-Registrar, Udaipur by deposing that on 05.09.2009 he was posted as UDC, Clerk-cum-Cashier at Sub-Registry office, Udaipur till 25.01.2010 and on 25.01.2010 he handed over the charge of Cashier including all files and registers to Sri Khagendra Acharjee and the work of Cashier is to deposit the collected money through searching fees and registration fees etc., to Bank through Treasury Challan and it is the duty of the Cashier to maintain Cash Book, Treasury Register and other Registers and the money collected in the sub-Registry office used to remain in the possession of Cashier and after handing over charge on 25.01.2010 he joined in the DM office and on 25.01.2010 he handed over the Cash Book and the said Cash Book is marked as Exbt. 17 as a whole and his signature of handing over charge of the said book is marked as Exbt. 17/1. He knows the signature of Sri Khagendra Acharjee and his signature given in presence of him of taking over of charge is marked as Exbt. 17/2. He also knows the signature of sub-registrar and the signatures of Sub-registrar are marked as Exbt. 17/3 and in Exbt. 12,. He has signed in the charge hand over index and his signature is already marked as Exbt. 12/3 and the signature of Khagendra Acharjee signed in his presence is already marked as Ext. 12/2. 17/2. He also knows the signature of sub-registrar and the signatures of Sub-registrar are marked as Exbt. 17/3 and in Exbt. 12,. He has signed in the charge hand over index and his signature is already marked as Exbt. 12/3 and the signature of Khagendra Acharjee signed in his presence is already marked as Ext. 12/2. P.W. 4 also identified accused before the trial court. 10. Considering the above mentioned evidence of P.W. 30, the then Sub-Registrar, who passed the order of handing over charge of cashier upon accused and P.W. 4, the earlier cashier, who handed over charge of cashier to the accused, the trial court found that their evidences are natural and reliable specially for the same are supported by Ext. 11, the order of handing over charge, Ext. 17, the cash book and Ext. 12, the charge list. 11. P.W. 10 Sri Samir Ranjan Saha deposed that he is deed writer by profession since 2001 to till now and he knows Khagendra Acharjee personally and he was the cashier/Head clerk of Udaipur Sub-Registry office. P.W. 10 identified accused Khagendra Acharjee before the court in the dock. 12. P.W. 17 Smt. Aparna Biswas deposed that she has been working as deed writer since the year 1986 at Udaipur and Khagendra Acharjee was the Head clerk of the said office and accused Khagendra Acharjee used to collect various fees in the Sub-registry office and accused Khagendra Acharjee was the cashier of the said Sub-registry office. P.W. 17 identified accused Khagendra Acharjee before the court. 13. P.W. 20 Sri Pankaj Banik deposed that he has been working in the office of Sub-registry as a deed writer since the year 2010 and he knows accused Khagendra Acharjee as he was the Head clerk in the said sub-registry office from the year 2010 and during that period various fees collected were kept by accused Khagendra Acharjee. P.W. 20 identified accused before the trial court in the dock. 14. P.W. 19 Sri Babul Acharjee deposed that he was the deed writer by profession and he has been working as deed writer from the year 2010 and Khagendra Acharjee is his brother in law and during that period of time Khagendra Acharjee was Head clerk in the office of Sub-registry. 15. P.W. 19 is declared hostile and his police statement is brought into record and subsequently on proof by I.O. marked as Ext. 55. 15. P.W. 19 is declared hostile and his police statement is brought into record and subsequently on proof by I.O. marked as Ext. 55. On perusal of Ext. 55, the trial court found that P.W. 19 stated to I.O. that the then cashier of the sub-registry office i.e. Head clerk was Khagendra Acharjee. P.W. 19 identified you before the trial court in the dock. 16. From the above mentioned evidence of P.W. 10, P.W. 17, P.W. 20 & P.W. 19, the trial court found their evidence as to the fact that accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee was cashier of the sub-registry office, Udaipur and fees collected were handed over to accused are believable and they being deed writer in the regular course of nature came to know the same. The trial court was of the view that police statement of hostile witness P.W. 19 marked Ext. 55 is believable as the same is corroborated with the evidence of P.W. 10, P.W. 17, P.W. 20 and other witnesses as discussed above. It is settled law that evidence of hostile witness can be relied on if corroborated by other evidence as in this case. 17. P.W. 27 Sri Keshab Debbarma, the member of audit team deposed that on 28.05.2011 he was posted as Senior Auditor in the office of the Accountant General (Audit) Agartala and on that day he along with Sri Santosh Kr. Debnath and Sri Sandip Chowdhury conducted audit in the Sub-registry office, Udaipur till 03.-06.2011 and at the time of their audit the various registers scrutinized by them were under possession of cashier accused Khagendra Acharjee and from 1st January, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 accused Khagendra Acharjee was the cashier of the sub-registry office and the custodian of the money collected of Rs. 21,44,700/- was accused Khagendra Acharjee. P.W. 27 identified accused Khagendra Acharjee before the court. 18. There the trial court was of the view that the evidence of P.W. 27 is believable as he came to know during audit that accused was custodian of the money collected in the sub-registry office, Udaipur. 19. P.W. 31 Sri Balin Debbarma, the then Additional DM & Collector and District Registrar of South Tripura District (Now Gomati District) deposed that from the year 2009 to till the month of May 2012 he was deposed as Addl. 19. P.W. 31 Sri Balin Debbarma, the then Additional DM & Collector and District Registrar of South Tripura District (Now Gomati District) deposed that from the year 2009 to till the month of May 2012 he was deposed as Addl. District Magistrate & Collector and also as District Registrar of South Tripura District and he has filed this case and from 1st January, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 accused Khagendra Acharjee was the cashier of the sub-registry office and before that he was also Head clerk and cashier of the Udaipur sub-registry office and cashier is the custodian of the cash money and cashier used to collect various fees through staff in the sub-registry office and registers can be maintained by others staff but under the control of cashier and his signature on the FIR is marked as Exbt. 3(ii). P.W. 31 identified Khagendra Acharjee before the court. Accordingly, the point No. (i) is decided in affirmative and in favour of the prosecution but against the accused. 20. The trial court found that P.W. 31 clearly deposed that accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee was the cashier and custodian of the cash money and cashier used collect various fees through staff in the sub-registry office, Udaipur and registers can be maintained by other staff but under the control of cashier. The trial court found that the evidence of P.W. 31 is corroborative with the other evidence as discussed above on material particulars as to the fact that accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee was the cashier and custodian of the cash money and accused used collect various fees through staff in the Sub-registry office, Udaipur and registers are maintained by other staff but under the control of accused. 21. PW 27 Sri Keshab Debbarma deposed that on 28.05.2011 he was posted as Senior Auditor in the office of the Accountant General (Audit) Agartala and on that day he along with Sri Santosh Kr. 21. PW 27 Sri Keshab Debbarma deposed that on 28.05.2011 he was posted as Senior Auditor in the office of the Accountant General (Audit) Agartala and on that day he along with Sri Santosh Kr. Debnath and Sri Sandip Chowdhury conducted audit in the Sub-Registry office, Udaipur till 3.06.2011 and during the audit they have scrutinized cash book, fee book register, searching and copy pasting register and compared the same with the treasury challan register and after scrutiny and verification they have prepared preliminary objection statement was written by Sri Santosh Debnath, Senior Auditor Officer and the said report was written and prepared by him in their presence and the photocopy of the said original is marked as Exbt. 46 series in four sheets after comparing with the original and the original is returned to him i.e. Audit Officer Keshab Debbarma as the same is required and necessary for their official purpose and from 3.1.2011 to 31.01.2011 in the said office as registration fee and commission, searching fee, copying fee in total Rs. 5,93,482 was collected and from 1.2.2011 to 31.02.2011 in the said office as registration fee and commission, searching fee, copying fee in total Rs. 8,56,645/- was collected fee and commission, searching fee, copying fee in total Rs. 8,43,811/- was collected and from the pasting fee total Rs. 10,962/- was collected and from the month of 1st January, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 in total Rs. 23,04,900/- was collected as registration fee and commission, searching fee, copying fee and pasting fee. They have found cash in chest in the said office of Rs. 1,60,200/- and they have found no challan or entry in the challan register about the deposit of the said Rs. 23,04,900/- in the treasury and he has perused the cash book and the money collected as registration fee, searching fee and copying fee from 1st May, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 of Rs. 5,14,846/- were not entered in the cash book and total pasting fee collected of Rs. 10,962/- from 1st January, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 were not entered in the cash book. PW 27 further deposed that at the time of our audit the various registers which were scrutinized by us were under possession of cashier Khagendra Acherjee. 5,14,846/- were not entered in the cash book and total pasting fee collected of Rs. 10,962/- from 1st January, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 were not entered in the cash book. PW 27 further deposed that at the time of our audit the various registers which were scrutinized by us were under possession of cashier Khagendra Acherjee. From 1st January, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 accused Khagendra Acherjee was the cashier of the Sub-Registry office and the custodian of the money collected of Rs. 21,44,700/- was accused Khagendra Acherjee and on being asked about the said money accused Khagendra Acherjee replied that he has no such money in his possession and he has given someone the said money as help. I know the accused Khagendra Acherjee and today he is present before the Court. 22. On 26.04.2011 the searching fee of Rs. 313/- as collected was also not entered in the cash book and the said cash book is already marked as Ext 17 and the said fee book register vol. No. 1 is already marked as Exbt. 33 and the fee book register vol. No. 2, is already marked as Ext. 34 and the searching and copying fee book register is already marked as Exb. 35 and the pasting copy register is already marked as Exbt. 32 and the Treasury Challan register is already marked as Exbt. 31 and in the said register there is no entry about the deposit of money of Rs. 23,04,900/- collected from 1st January, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 in the treasury office and the last deposit in the said register is shown as on 20.05.2011 of Rs. 1,88,180/- which were collected on 28.12.2010 and 29.12.2010. He has also checked and perused the various receipt book of Sub-Registry office and the said books are already marked as Exbt. 36 series, 37 series and 38 series and at the time of their audit the various registers scrutinized by them were under possession of cashier Khagendra Acherjee and from 1st January, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 accused Khagendra Acherjee was the cashier of the Sub-Registry office and the custodian of the money collected of the Sub-Registry office and the custodian of the money collected of Rs. 21,44,700/- was accused Khagendra Acherjee and on being asked about the said money accused Khagendra Acherjee replied that he has no such money in his possession and he has given some on the said money as help. 23. PW. 29 Smt. Sanchali Roy deposed that on 08.06.2011 she was posted as Sr. Auditor at A & G Office Agartala, and during the period on 28.05.2011 to 03.06.2011 an audit team namely Santosh Debnath, Keshab Debbarma and another person conducted audit in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Udaipur and after conducting audit they have submitted preliminary objection statement in the A & G office Agartala and in the audit report it is mentioned that Rs. 23,04,900/- was collected in the Sub-Registry office Udaipur from various sources during the period from 1st January, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 but said money was not deposited in the treasury and in the audit report it is mentioned that in the chest in the Sub-Registry office cash amount of Rs. 1,60,200/- was found and an amount of Rs. 21,44,700/- was defalcated and Rs. 5,14,846/- was not entered in the cash book which were collected in the month of May, 2011 and an amount of Rs. 10,962/- collected as pasting fees is also not entered in the cash book and an amount of Rs. 313/- is collected as searching fees but the same is also not entered in the cash book and on the basis of preliminary objection statement report submitted by audit team, she has prepared audit report and the said report are already marked as Exbt. 13/2 series and the photocopy of the preliminary objection statement to the Sub-Registrar, Udaipur and her signature on the said letter is marked as Exbt. 13(iv). 24. PW 1 deposed that in the year 2011 an audit was occurred in the Sub-Registry Office, Udaipur and the persons who conducted audit told that Rs. 13/2 series and the photocopy of the preliminary objection statement to the Sub-Registrar, Udaipur and her signature on the said letter is marked as Exbt. 13(iv). 24. PW 1 deposed that in the year 2011 an audit was occurred in the Sub-Registry Office, Udaipur and the persons who conducted audit told that Rs. 23,00000/- was misappropriated and at the time of conducting audit the accused was present in the said office and in the evening on the day of audit cashier Khagendra Acherjee left the office and thereafter he never came to the office and thereafter Sub-Registrar asked him for giving a letter to Khagendra Acherjee and he went to the house of Khagendra Acherjee but he did not find him in his house and he asked his wife for receiving the letter but his wife refused to receive the letter and thereafter he called a neighbour and pasted the said letter on the door of Khagendra Acherjee and taken the signature of the neighbour as a witness and thereafter he has submitted the office copy of the letter to the office and the said notice is marked as Exbt. 1 as a whole and the report along with his signature is marked as Exbt. 1/1. 25. PW 21 Sri Abhijit @ Uttam Chakraborty deposed that the knows the accused Khagendra Acherjee being his neighbour and he knows that accused is an employee of D.M. & Collector, Gomati District, Udaipur and at about 4/5 years back one person from the D.M. office came to him and asked him whether Khagendra Acherjee is in his house or not and he asked him for looking after the same and on search the said person found that Khagendra Acherjee was not in the house and the said person asked him for putting his signature and the said person has issued a notice and his signature is marked as Exbt. 1/3. PW 21 identified accused Khangendra Acherjee before the Court. 26. Thus, from the evidence of PWs 1, 21 and 31 the trial court found that the accused absconded and the same goes against the accused. The fact that accused absconded is corroborated by Ext. 1, the notice and Exb. 14, the monthly attendance register, From Ext. 1/3. PW 21 identified accused Khangendra Acherjee before the Court. 26. Thus, from the evidence of PWs 1, 21 and 31 the trial court found that the accused absconded and the same goes against the accused. The fact that accused absconded is corroborated by Ext. 1, the notice and Exb. 14, the monthly attendance register, From Ext. 14, the trial court found accused did not sign in the attendance register for second half (signature at the time of leaving of office), which all the staff used to sign, on 01.06.2011 and since 02.06.2011 accused has been absent from duty. From Ext. 1 the trial court found that notice was issued upon the accused for his unauthorized absence from duty and for non handing over of key of locker and for defalcation and for handing over to charge. 27. PW 1 Sri Purna Sadhan Jamatia merely wrote the FIR as per dictation of PW-31, PW-23 Sri Tarun Kanti Chakma, the seizure witness proved seizure of documents marked Ext. 17, Ext. 31 to Ext. 38 by preparing seizure list marked Ext. 30 P.W. 25 Sri Ranbir Bhattacharjee, the finger print expert is not material in this case as he found finger print were not fit for comparison. PW 26 Subrata Barman, the 1st investigating officer proved the fact of receipt of FIR, visit to the PO, preparation of hand sketch map and index, recording of statement of witnesses and seizure of articles. PW 28 Sri Rajib Saha, the 2nd investigating officer of this case proved the seizure of articles, collection of specimen signature of accused, sending of specimen signature and documents to SFSL, collection of report from SFSL and police statements of hostile witnesses. 28. In this case the evidence of PW5 Sri Ranjit Kr. Jamatia, PW6 Sri Binada Hari Jamatia, PW 7 Sri Pratik Datta, PW8 Sri Babul Acharjee, PW9 Sri Avik Datta, PW10 Sri Samir Ranjan Saha, PW11 Sri Bimbisar Bhattacharjee, PW15 Sri Pradip Kr. Deb, PW-18 Sri Subrata Choudhury and PW 19 Sri Babul Acharjee relating to the fact that accused invested money in the brick filed, the trial court was of the view that the same are not cogent and convicting and thus not reliable. Deb, PW-18 Sri Subrata Choudhury and PW 19 Sri Babul Acharjee relating to the fact that accused invested money in the brick filed, the trial court was of the view that the same are not cogent and convicting and thus not reliable. However, the trial court was of the view that the same is not fatal to the case of prosecution for it is not necessary/mandatory for prosecution to prove the fact that how and where the defalcated money was used by accused. If defalcation is proved it is duty of accused to account for the defalcated money. 29. Thus, therefore, considering all this aspect, the trial court was of the view that the prosecution was able to prove the fact that accused Sri Khagendra dishonestly misappropriated and committed breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 21,44,700/- Accordingly, point No. (ii) was decided in affirmative and in favor of the prosecution. 30. As regards the submission for accused: As regards the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused as to the fact that on or before 25.01.2010 no order was passed for handing over of charge of cashier upon the accused and subsequent order dated 01.02.2010 marked Exbt. 11 is false and only created after filing of this case, the trial court was of the view that the same was not convincing for on perusal of Exbt. 11, it was found that the Exbt. 11 was dated 01.02.2010 and passed by then Sub-Registrar of Udaipur Sri S. Singh vide No. F.1(12)-DR/S/2000/92-95 and the same cannot be created after filing of FIR dated 09.06.2011. Once from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents it is proved that Exbt. 11 was passed on 01.02.2015 mere taking of plea that Exbt. 11 is false and created after filing of this case is not sufficient and it is the burden of the accused to prove the same. Accused could have called for relevant dispatched register or peon book or other documents from the Sub-Registry officer, Udaipur to show the fact that no such order was passed or dispatched on 01.02.2010 or circulated but the accused failed to do so. Accused could have called for relevant dispatched register or peon book or other documents from the Sub-Registry officer, Udaipur to show the fact that no such order was passed or dispatched on 01.02.2010 or circulated but the accused failed to do so. The trial court was of the view that taking of charge earlier and passing or order of handing over of charge subsequently as in this case, in respect of the accused, is not fatal and order can be passed giving charge with retrospective effect where actual charge was taken before passing the order of handing over the charge as in this case. 31. In cross examination PW 29 deposed that without the report of audit team the report (final audit report) prepared by her cannot be prepared merely on the basis of the calculation sheet as found in Exbt. 46 series and prosecution has not shown to her the audit report prepared by audit team and the said report is not before the court, by in the view of the trial court, the same is not fatal for prosecution as stated earlier if defalcation is proved otherwise. In cross-examination, PW 30 deposed that he cannot say whether accused Khagendra Acharjee only used to maintain cash book but cash money and other matters of cash were dealt by the then Sub-Registrar himself, and according to the trial court the same was not fatal to the prosecution as during the defalcation period PW 30 was not posted in the Sub-Registry officer, for which it is not possible to say the same. In cross-examination PW 31 deposed that he did not state in the FIR and to the IO that he and other senior officers verified the audit report with the documents and registers of Sub-Registry but as per the trial court the same was minor omission and not fatal to the case of prosecution. 32. Finally by the order dated 13.12.2017, the trial court has observed as follows: 'In the result, I find, the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt of the offence punishable under sections 409/403 of IPC against accused namely, Sri Khagendra Acharjee and accordingly, accused Sri Khagendra Acharjee is convicted for offence punishable under Sections 409/403 of IPC.' 33. Aggrieved by the said order dated 13.12.2017, the defendant Sri Khagendra Acharjee, preferred an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. The case was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 03(1) of 2018. 34. By the order dated 27.01.2020, the lower appellate court has observed that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond shadow of doubt to the extent that the convict-appellant Sri Khagendra Acherjee was the cashier of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Udaipur during the relevant period w.e.f. 03.01.2011 to 31.05.2011 and it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that during the said period the convict-appellant committed criminal misappropriation of Rs. 21,44,700/- which was collected as revenue on various heads of the Sub-Registry, Udaipur and the accused also failed to account for the said amount of money and situated thus, the charge under Sections 403 and 409 of the IPC has been rightly held by the trial court to be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 35. The quantum of sentence as imposed by the trial court also is found to be not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and not excessive given the kind of offence committed by the accused. As such, the lower appellate court found no reason to take a different view than that of the trial court so as to interfere in the appeal. 36. Finally by the order dated 27.01.2020, the lower appellate court has observed in the following manner: In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.12.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati District, Udaipur in case No. GR 347 of 2011 is hereby upheld. 37. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2020, the petitioner herein approached this court seeking to set aside the judgment dated 27.01.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 03(1) of 2018 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. 38. Heard counsel for the parties. 39. In order to support the contention, Mr. 37. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2020, the petitioner herein approached this court seeking to set aside the judgment dated 27.01.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 03(1) of 2018 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. 38. Heard counsel for the parties. 39. In order to support the contention, Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has placed his reliance on a judgment of the apex court in Hema v. State reported in (2013) 10 SCC 192 where the apex court has observed in the following manner: In the light of the overwhelming evidence placed by the prosecution, analysed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court, interference by this Court with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below is not warranted except where there is some serious infirmity in the appreciation of evidence and the findings are perverse. Further, this Court will not ordinarily interfere with appreciation of evidence by the High Court and re-appreciation is permissible only if there is an error of law or procedure and conclusions arrived at are perverse. 40. Mr. R. Datta, learned PP has vehemently opposed the contention as advanced by Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. To support his contention, Mr. R. Datta, learned PP has placed his reliance in a decision of the Apex Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 , where the Apex Court has observed in the following manner: '34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.' 41. Reliance has also been placed on another decision of the Apex Court in Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 , where by the Apex Court has held in the following manner: 23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 364 this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under:- '5..... The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest....' 42. After perusing the entire records so placed before this court, this court is of the view that the scope is very limited at this level for revision of the instant petition. After appreciation of evidence, it cannot be brought into record that the petitioner moved this court with clean hands. Moreover, the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the lower appellate court is justified and needs no interference. Further as per the evidence of the independent witness Smt. Sanchali Roy (PW-29) in her chief examination she has categorically stated that on 08.06.2011 she was posted as Sr. Auditor at A & G Office Agartala, and during the period on 28.05.2011 to 03.06.2011 an audit team namely Santosh Debnath, Keshab Debbarma and another person conducted audit in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Udaipur and after conducting audit they have submitted preliminary objection statement in the A & G office Agartala and in the audit report it is mentioned that Rs. 23,04,900/- was collected in the Sub-Registry office Udaipur from various sources during the period from 1st January, 2011 to 31st May, 2011 but said money was not deposited in the treasury and in the audit report it is mentioned that in the chest in the Sub-Registry office cash amount of Rs. 1,60,200/- was found and an amount of Rs. 21,44,700/- was defalcated and Rs. 5,14,846/- was not entered in the cash book which were collected in the month of May, 2011 and an amount of Rs. 10,962/- collected as pasting fees is also not entered in the cash book and an amount of Rs. 313/- is collected as searching fees but the same is also not entered in the cash book and on the basis of preliminary objection statement report submitted by audit team, she has prepared audit report and the said report are already marked as Exbt. 13/2 series and the photocopy of the preliminary objection statement to the Sub-Registrar, Udaipur and her signature on the said letter is marked as Exbt. 13(iv). 43. In view of the above discussion, the instant criminal revision petition stands dismissed confirming the order dated 27.01.2020 of the appellate court.