JUDGMENT
S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal of Duli Chand passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, dated 28th January, 1982 in respect of charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case as emerge from the First Information Report lodged on the basis of letter dated 28-11-1975 from the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Panipat to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, are that Duli Chand (accused), Ex-Cashier of the Karhans Co-operative Agricultural Society, embezzled a sum of Rs. 37,300/- belonging to the said Society. A sum of Rs. 22,300/- had been shown bogus advancement of loan against members of the Society, the details of which are as under :–
———————————————————
Sr. No. Name of the loanee Amount Date --------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ami Lal S/o Chhaju 4000.00 31-12-69 2. Raj Pal S/o Amin Lal 4000.00 -do- 3. Mohan Singh S/o Shambu 4000.00 -do- 4. Gulab Singh S/o Munshi 4000.00 -do- 5. Naurang S/o Jabar 2700.00 27-7-71 6. Parkasha S/o Ram Sarif 3600.00 -do- ---------------------------------------------------------
Apart from that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to Shri Jagdish Secretary of Simla Gujran Co-operative Society as per entry at Page No. 6 of the Cash-book of the Society that Duli Chand accused had accepted the aforesaid liabilities and admitted that he was liable to pay the said amount on 1-11-1972; that the Field Staff failed to recover the said amount from Duli Chand and on the recommendations of Shri Ishwar Singh, the then Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Panipat, the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, was requested to register a case against Duli Chand. On the basis of the said letter ease under Sections 406/409/468 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Duli Chand, who was charged under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and was later on acquitted of the said charge.
3. The learned counsel for the parties were heard.
4. The prosecution in the instant case has failed to produce any legal, cogent or reliable evidence on the record to prove that Duli Chand had been duly authorised to work as Cashier of the said Society. Testimony of P.W. 8 Dharam Singh, member of the Managing Committee of the said Society reveals that an amount of Rs. 32,160/- was entrusted to Jagdish Secretary of the said Society and the entire responsibility for disbursement of the said amount amongst the members of the Society as a loanee was that of Jagdish aforesaid. Shri Ishwar Singh, Inspector Cooperative Bank, while appearing as P.W. 7 admitted in his cross-examination that Charan Singh was the Cashier and Jagdish was the Secretary of the said Society in those days and the entire responsibility of the cash rests with the Cashier, whereas, the Secretary maintains the Cash book and that no resolution had been passed by the Administrative Committee in order to empower Duli Chand (accused) to maintain the records of the said Society. In the instant case Jagdish aforesaid has not been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has thus not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Duli Chand accused was responsible for the embezzlement of the said amount. Nor it can be reasonably inferred from the material on the record that Duli Chand accused had prepared the record of the Society, or such record is in possession of Duli Chand.
5. As far as evidence of Ishwar Singh P.W. 7 that Duli Chand took responsibility in respect of Rs. 37,300/ – is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon as the prosecution has failed to examine Jagdish aforesaid or any other witness in whose presence Duli Chand took responsibility for repayment of the said amount. Nor any member of the Managing Committee has supported the allegation that Duli Chand accused has owned responsibility to repay the amount of Rs. 37,300/-.
6. Apart from that neither the report of Shri K. N. Prasad, Junior Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh has been produced or tendered in evidence by the proseuciton, nor, the said officer had been examined by the prosecution to prove that the specimen signatures of Duli Chand accused tallies with his proved signatures. In these circumstances no reliance can be placed on the report of Shri K. N. Parsad about the signatures of Duli Chand accused against entry at page No. 29 of the Proceeding Book. The prosecution has also failed to prove one of the essential ingredients concerning entrustment of Rs. 37,300/– belonging to the said Society to Duli Chand accused in his capacity as a Cashier of the said Society. Nor there is any reliable evidence on the record to further prove that Duli Chand accused had misappropriated, or, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the money belonging to the said Society. In the absence of any reliable evidence either about the extra [judicial confession said to have been made by Duli Chand in respect of his liability to repay ‘the embezzled amount in this case, or, that Duli Chand himself withdrew the amount of Rs. 48,000/ – on behalf of the Society from the Bank, mere oral statement of Dharam Singh P.W. 8 would not be sufficient to hold that Duli Chand had committed the offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of money belonging to the aforesaid Co-operative Society, in order to bring home charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against him.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.