IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 460 of 2002 Date of judgment: June 18, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Ajeet Singh ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral). State has appealed against the judgment dated 30.6.2001, whereby respondent Ajeet Singh, who was charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, has been acquitted. Facts, on which the respondent was tried for the aforesaid offences, are like this. Respondent was employed as Extra Departmental Delivery Branch Post Master at Post Office, Lilly, from 1981 onwards. One of his duties was to receive money from the depositors and to enter the same not only in the pass-books of the depositors but also in the cash books. PW1 Anita Devi had opened five Recurring Accounts, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - in the names of her five children, namely, Suneel Kumar, Ranju Bala, Neelam Kumari, Meenakshi and Anubala, in which she used to deposit Rs.20/- each, every month. PW-8 Suti Devi, had a Savings Bank Account, in which she made deposits of Rs.500/- and Rs.1025/-, during the year 1990. One Nirmala Devi, had also a Savings Bank Account, in which she had deposited Rs.360/- in the aforesaid year. Respondent allegedly made entries in the passbooks of the children of PW- 1 Anita Devi, regarding deposit of money, every month, in the year 1990, but did not reflect those amounts in the cash- books and misappropriated the amounts. He also allegedly misappropriated two amounts of Rs. 500/- and Rs.1025/- deposited by PW-8 Suti Devi, in the year 1990, by withdrawing that money from her account unauthorisedly by forging documents. From the account of Nirmala Devi, also he allegedly withdrew a sum of Rs.360/-. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent, holding that the charge does not stand established. According to the trial Court, the prosecution did not produce the passbooks of five children of PW-1 Anita Devi, pertaining to the year 1990. PW- 8 Suti Devi’s testimony has been disbelieved with the observation that she is not sure as to what amount had exactly been deposited by her and how much money had been paid to - 3 - her when she closed the account. Nirmla Devi was not examined by the prosecution. I have heard learned Assistant Advocate General, as also learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. Learned trial Court’s observation that pass-books pertaining to the year 1990, in respect of five children of PW-1 Anita Devi, are not there, is not correct. Passbooks are there and the same are exhibits PW1/A, PW1/B, PW1/C, PW1/D and PW11/11. In all these passbooks, entries are there regarding deposit of Rs.20/- every month, throughout the calendar year 1990. However, the prosecution did not lead any evidence in support of the allegation that the deposits reflected in the passbooks, aforesaid had not been reflected in the corresponding cash book. In fact, no cash book had been proved on record by the prosecution. As regards misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1525/- out of the account of PW-8 Suti Devi, the prosecution did not lead any specific evidence. PW-8 Suti Devi, made a vague statement that she had deposited a sum of Rs.6000/- in her account but the postal staff told that only a sum of Rs.4000/- was deposited in her account and the remaining amount of - 4 - Rs.2000/- had been misappropriated by the respondent. Her statement being not specific and exact cannot be taken as a piece of evidence. Nirmla Devi was not examined by the prosecution. In view of the above stated position, no fault can be found with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Hence the appeal is dismissed. June 18, 2009 (Surjit Singh), J. s.