1973 (11) TMI 91 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 408 of the Penal Code for breach of trust.
2. Lack of direct evidence of entrustment to the appellant.
3. Scrutiny of evidence by the High Court.
4. Defense of the appellant regarding the amounts received.
5. Lack of evidence on the mode of keeping accounts and cash tallying.
6. Reliance on appellant's signature in the branch office books.
7. Inadequate evidence to prove breach of trust.

Analysis:

The judgment involves the appellant, accused No. 3, who was convicted under Section 408 of the Penal Code for breach of trust involving a sum of Rs. 7,000. The appellant, along with two others, was tried and convicted by the learned Magistrate, sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment. The Sessions Judge acquitted accused No. 1 but upheld the conviction of the appellant and accused No. 2. The High Court confirmed this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave.

The case revolved around the appellant, who was the Manager of a cooperative society with branch offices. Allegations stated that the appellant misappropriated funds entrusted to him for transfer between branch and head offices. The prosecution relied on entries in account books to prove the entrustment of funds, but the High Court noted the lack of direct or indirect evidence supporting this claim.

The defense presented by the appellant was that he received two separate amounts, totaling Rs. 9,500, not the alleged Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 9,500 separately. The High Court raised concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the accounting practices, cash handling procedures, and the absence of detailed information on the business operations presented during the trial.

The High Court primarily relied on the appellant's signature in the branch office books as evidence of entrustment. However, the Supreme Court highlighted discrepancies in the interpretation of the appellant's statement under the CrPC, emphasizing that the admission of the signature should be viewed in its entirety, not selectively.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found a lack of credible evidence to support the breach of trust charge against the appellant. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and discharging the bail bond of the appellant.