HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1211 of 2002 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Appellant And 1. Dr.K.Ramakrishna Sharma 2. K.Pakkirappa ..Respondents/ Accused HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1211 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The Public Prosecutor filed this appeal questioning acquittal of A.1 and A.2 of offences punishable under Sections 409, 477- A/109 I.P.C in C.C.No.30 of 1991 recorded by the Principal Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Anantapur. A.1 was working as Veterinary Officer, Poultry Marketing Sub Centre (P.M.S.C), Anantapur and was also holding in-charge of Hindupur Sub Centre from 28.11.1979 to 05.11.1984. A.2 was working as Poultry Assistant in P.M.S.C., Anantapur from 01.07.1982 to 30.06.1985. A.1 and A.2 were employees of Andhra Pradesh State Meat and Poultry Development Corporation, Hyderabad. A.2 was dealing the affairs of the Sub Centre, whereas A.1 was expected to supervise working of A.2. It is alleged that A.2 prepared records as if he had given credit of feed, eggs, birds etc., without obtaining acknowledgment from the parties and also on fictitious names and that taking advantage of absence of records the parties denied dues to the Corporation. It is further alleged that A.1 failed to supervise working of A.2 and that actions of A.2 and in-action of A.1 resulted in huge loss to the Corporation. It is alleged that during the period from 01.07.1982 to 30.03.1985 A.2 mis-appropriated an amount of Rs.3,41,936-02 ps by maintaining false documents and that during the period from 01.04.1984 to 31.03.1985 A.2 committed mis-appropriation of Rs.1,13,004-68 ps. Plea of A.1 and A.2 is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court recorded acquittal of A.1 and A.2 of the charges finding them not guilty. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the lower Court having accepted evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, should not have rejected Ex.P.8. The lower Court rejected Ex.P.8 on the ground that it relates to the period from 01.04.1984 to 31.03.1985, which period includes the period subsequent to suspension of A.1 on 05.11.1984. A.2 was suspended from service on 10.02.1986. Ex.P.8 is an extract statement showing total entrustment made from all sources and amount accounted for by A.2. There are three entries in Ex.P.8 for the years 1982- 83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. Last column of Ex.P.8 gives the amount mis-appropriated by A.2 during the said years as Rs.83,679-61 ps, Rs.1,45,259-73 ps and Rs.1,13,004-68 ps totalling Rs.3,41,936-02 ps. When Ex.P.8 relates to the abstract of accounts pertaining to A.2’s mis-appropriation of funds, the lower Court should not have taken into account the date of suspension of A.1. Entries relating to first two years period covered by Ex.P.8 is totally working period of A.2. 3. But, neither the investigating officer collected supported documents for the entries in Ex.P.8 extract nor the Public Prosecutor who conducted trial in the lower Court took steps for summoning registers and records supporting the above extract covered by Ex.P.8. The prosecution also examined P.W.4 who is the internal Auditor who made special audit of the Sub Centre at Anantapur on the directions of the Corporation. Though the prosecution marked his audit reports, the prosecution did not choose to produce relevant registers and accounts on the basis of which P.W.4 prepared the special audit reports. Scrutiny of records and registers by P.W.4 may be sufficient for him to arrive at the conclusions mentioned in his audit reports; and the said audit reports may be sufficient for taking departmental action against A.2. But certainly audit reports by themselves will not prove absence of entries in the registers and accounts and entrustment of funds to A.2 from various sources including by the parties who deal with the Sub Centre. In the absence of production of accounts, registers and records which formed basis of the special audit reports of P.W.4, I am of the opinion that the prosecution will not able to fasten criminal liability on A.2. 4. It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that A.2 admitted his liability in Ex.P.21-letter addressed by him to P.W.3. Ex.P.21 is only a Photostat copy of the letter said to have been addressed by A.2 to P.W.3. Original letter said to have been given by A.2 to P.W.3, is not produced in the trial Court. On the basis of Photostat copy, I am afraid that no conviction can be recorded. A.2 denied Ex.P.21 in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The lower Court commented that except P.W.3, there is no other evidence produced by the prosecution in support of Ex.P.21. Ex.P.21 is not in the handwriting of A.2. It was written by somebody and is stated to have been signed by A.2. It is a document addressed by A.2 to his superior officer. In those circumstances, the lower Court is justified in seeking corroboration for P.W.3 in order to prove the original of Ex.P.21 letter. 5. In the absence of collection of valid evidence by the investigating officer and production of valid and legal evidence by the prosecution during trial in the lower Court, I am of the opinion that the lower Court is justified in finding A.2 not guilty of the charges. Insofar as A.1 is concerned, there is no mis- appropriation or embezzlement of funds alleged against A.1. Mere failure to make proper supervision of A.2’s affairs in the Sub Centre, may not fasten him with criminal liability, even though it may be a valid ground for taking departmental action against A.1. Thus, on scrutiny of the entire material on record, I find that there are no grounds either on facts or in law to interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 6. Hence the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 02.08.2011 VJL