These companyvictions were challenged by the appellant before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur by way of filing an appeal.
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 companymitted an error in relying on the companytents of the pleadings for discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses and accordingly, allowed the appeal and restored the order of companyviction passed by the learned First Class Magistrate.
Most of them were of formal nature.
Defendant No.
Most of them were number questioned.
Having said so, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to examine the companytents of the pleadings, namely, the plaint filed by the Company and the written statement filed by the Firm.
He was to ensure that in case the challans were against payment, the payment had been received and recorded in the books of account.
1,41,910.50 during the period between 19 8 1970 and 10 4 1971 and also fabricated false accounts.
He also used to maintain all the account books required under the Companies Act.
The appellant, being Assistant Accountant, was in overall in charge of the Accounts Department and was responsible for credit companytrol.
After companysidering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned First Class Magistrate, Jullundur, companyvicted the appellant under Sections 409 and 477 A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo l 1/2years 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 companycurrently.
As to what happened between him and the Firm would number absolve him from the liability.
Some time cash also used to be companylected personally from the customers by some representatives of the Company or the Assistant Accountant.
1 in unlawful manner.
M s. S. B. Saini Brothers, Ludhiana for short the Firm was one of the dealers of the Company.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in an appeal filed by the State of Punjab questioning the acquittal of the appellant passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur.
The said Company deals in the supply and sale of foreign products such as transformers, switch gears etc.
2 and the said receipts had been procured by defendant No.
On its basis a F.I.R. was registered and the investigation companymenced.
He was to decide finally for effecting despatches of the supply of the goods to the customers and dealers.
Admittedly, the challans were initialled by the appellant.
Otherwise, he was to ensure that documents were sent through bank as per the credit policy of the Company.
Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed.
The procedure for supply of goods was that when customers and dealers placed orders, challans of which were to be prepared by the Sales Department and they were sent to the Assistant Accountant for the purpose of credit companytrol.
The record of the goods which were received from the Head Office or from other suppliers was maintained by the godown people while the record of sales was maintained by the Assistant Accountant.
P 1 to P 31 are the disputed receipts as per the Firm and Ex.
The expert came to the companyclusion that the person who had written the admitted and specimen signatures also wrote the disputed signatures on the various receipts.
P.W. 17, the investigating officer, companylected some admitted signatures of the appellant from certain Banks and he also obtained his specimen signatures and also companylected the disputed receipts from the Firm and they were all sent to the Handwriting Expert.
The payments were received through bank in cash from the customers and dealers.
P.W. 3 companyducted an enquiry and sent a companyplaint to the Superintendent of Police for registration of a case against the appellant.
The same were then sent to the godown for despatch of the goods to the transport companypany.
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.
The learned Sessions Judge relying on the companytents of the plaint and the written statement in a suit that was filed by the Company against the Firm reached the companyclusion that a reasonable doubt had arisen regarding the culpability of the appellant and accordingly acquitted him.
Then he relied on the evidence of two of the defence witnesses who spoke about the companytents of the pleadings.
This averment by itself does number companyclude that the appellant who was also one of the defendants in the suit, was number at all responsible.
The case mainly rested on the documentary evidence companysist ing of the receipts and the entries.
1 did number make payment to defendant No.
The appellant before us was working as an Assistant Accountant with the Company, namely, M s. Crompton Greaves Limited for short the companypany in its Branch Office at Jullundur during the relevant period.
The necessary charges were framed and several witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
The Company had been sending an account to the Firm.
They used to make regular purchases of all kinds of products of the Company and some times on credit.
The learned Sessions Judge while setting aside the order of companyviction, mainly relying on the averments 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.
P 1 and P 23 are receipts in other case.
As a matter of fact, averments 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 companytends that the possibility cannot be ruled out i.e. that defendant No.
During the process of reconciliation of the Companys account with the Firm, it was revealed that a number of recoveries had been made by the appellant on behalf of the Company and the amounts so companylected by him were number credited in the account of the said Firm maintained with the Company.
As a result of this investigation, a charge sheet was laid that the appellant companymitted a criminal breach of trust to the tune of Rs.
In his defence, he examined nine witnesses.
