Case: Inder Sain Jain Vs. State of Punjab

and also fabricated false accounts. The necessary charges were framed and several witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellant denied the allegation and pleaded that the Excise and Taxation Department raided the premises of the Company at Jullundur on 10-6-1971 and seized goods and that the appellant was made responsible as relation between him and the Company became strained. In his defence, he examined nine witnesses. Most of them were of formal nature. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned First Class Magistrate, Jullundur, convicted the appellant under sections 409 and 477-A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 1 1/2 years R.I. under section 409, I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 4, 000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 9 months R.I. and 1 1/2 years R.I. under Section 477-A, I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. These convictions were challenged by the appellant before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur by way of filing an appeal. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the contents of plaint and the written statement in a suit that was filed by the Company against the Firm reached the conclusion that a reasonable doubt had arisen regarding the culpability of the appellant and accordingly acquitted him. The said order of acquittal was challenged before the High Court and by the impugned order, the High Court held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in relying on the contents of the pleadings for discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses and accordingly, allowed the appeal and restored the order of conviction passed by the learned First Class Magistrate. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that for fixing the liability of the appellant, the Company has to firmly establish that the appellant has committed the breach of trust and fabricated the accounts and in view of the avernments in the pleadings in the suit between the Company and the Firm, genuine doubt has arisen about the involvement of the appellant about which the learned Sessions Judge gave the benefit of doubt and the High Court erred in reversing the same particularly when two views are possible 4. It is not in dispute that the appellant was working as an Assistant Accountant during the relevant period. The case mainly rested on the documentary evidence consisting of the receipts and the entries. Most of them were not questioned. Ex. P-1 to P-31 are the disputed receipts as per the Firm and Ex. P-1 and P-23 are receipts in other case. The Handwriting Experts opinion establishes that the appellant signed on some of them and also made entries 5. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant is that neither the Company has produced the copies of bills and vouchers etc. to show that the goods were supplied to the said Firm nor the Firm has produced anything about the receipt of the goods on credit. The High Court has considered this aspect and has rightly held that non-production of these documents is not at all relevant for the purpose of the criminal case. However, it is noticed that the Firm as well as the Company have produced which are important. The evidence of P.W. 4 is important in this context 6. In any event, there is voluminous evidence that the appellant was responsible for the accounts and for the amounts received which were entrusted to him7. The learned Sessions Judge while setting aside the order of conviction, mainly relying on the avernments in the pleadings in the civil suit has observed categorically that the prosecution laid the good evidence to prove the signatures on the receipts made by the appellant in token of the payments received by him. Having said so, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to examine the contents of the pleadings, namely, the plaint filed by the Company and the written statement filed by the Firm. Then he relied on the evidence of two of the defence witnesses who spoke about the contents of the pleadings. It must be noted that the learned Sessions Judge tried to take these avernments as admissions amounts having been received by the appellant. An observation was made that the Firm might have dishonestly managed to take these receipts from the appellant. We are at a loss to know that even if that is true the appellant cannot escape his responsibility when once it is admitted that he was responsible for maintaining the accounts and also accountable to the amounts received. As a matter of fact, avernments in the plaint as spoken by D.W. 8 who was examined and who was an office bearer of the Company is to the effect that the plaintiff, namely, the Company in all the circumstances contends that the possibility cannot be ruled out i.e. that defendant No. 1 did not make payment to defendant No. 2 and the said receipts had been procured by defendant No. 1 in unlawful manner. Defendant No. 2 is no other than the appellant. This avernment by itself does not conclude that the appellant who was also one of the defendants in the suit, was not at all responsible8. For the purpose of the criminal case, what the facts establish is that the appellant was entrusted with the receipts and that the amounts received from the dealers had to be credited and if they are not properly accounted for, then responsibility squarely was on him. To that extent, the prosecution, in the instant case, has established the entrustment as well as making false accounts. As to what happened between him and the Firm would not absolve him from the liability. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly held that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in acquitting the appellant by reversing the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. There are no two possible views in this case

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. The learned Sessions Judge while setting aside the order of conviction, mainly relying on the avernments in the pleadings in the civil suit has observed categorically that the prosecution laid the good evidence to prove the signatures on the receipts made by the appellant in token of the payments received by him. Having said so, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to examine the contents of the pleadings, namely, the plaint filed by the Company and the written statement filed by the Firm. Then he relied on the evidence of two of the defence witnesses who spoke about the contents of the pleadings. It must be noted that the learned Sessions Judge tried to take these avernments as admissions amounts having been received by the appellant. An observation was made that the Firm might have dishonestly managed to take these receipts from the appellant. We are at a loss to know that even if that is true the appellant cannot escape his responsibility when once it is admitted that he was responsible for maintaining the accounts and also accountable to the amounts received. As a matter of fact, avernments in the plaint as spoken by D.W. 8 who was examined and who was an office bearer of the Company is to the effect that the plaintiff, namely, the Company in all the circumstances contends that the possibility cannot be ruled out i.e. that defendant No. 1 did not make payment to defendant No. 2 and the said receipts had been procured by defendant No. 1 in unlawful manner. Defendant No. 2 is no other than the appellant. This avernment by itself does not conclude that the appellant who was also one of the defendants in the suit, was not at all responsible8. For the purpose of the criminal case, what the facts establish is that the appellant was entrusted with the receipts and that the amounts received from the dealers had to be credited and if they are not properly accounted for, then responsibility squarely was on him. To that extent, the prosecution, in the instant case, has established the entrustment as well as making false accounts. As to what happened between him and the Firm would not absolve him from the liability. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly held that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in acquitting the appellant by reversing the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. There are no two possible views in this case