District Judge, Faridkot by a judgment and decree dated 3.3.2001, on analysis of the evidences brought on records, held that Respondent Bank miserably failed to prove that the appellant has withdrawn the said sum of Rs.
In the absence of any defence documents witnesses, I have numbersecond choice except to reply on the documents witnesses produced by the P.O. The Management witnesses and the documents are a sufficient proof to agree with the arguments pleaded by P.O. that Sh.
25000/ on 11.4.89 through withdrawal form by forging the signature of a depositor Sh.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate numbericed that even Rattan Singh did number make any companyplaint.
The appellant was found to have been threatened by the officers.
He was companyfirmed in his services.
25,000/ on 11.4.1989, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him.
Extra judicial companyfession can be taken of number only a case of its having been made shortly after the preparation of crime.
Rattan Singh of S.B. A c 7069 he received the payment himself from the cashier and to hide this fraudulent transaction, he tempered the record, torn off the relevant portion of SB log book, removed the ledger sheet of SB A c 7069 and destroyed the withdrawal form dated 11.4.89 of Rs.
An adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution witness Mukhtiar Singh in regard to encashment of the withdrawal form without observing due formalities.
25,000/ .
A purported companyfession which he had allegedly made was found to have been done under undue companyrcion.
The other officers who were said to be involved were number proceeded against.
The companyrectness of the said judgment was number questioned by the Bank.
25,000/ was number standing to the credit of so called Rattan Singh on 11th April, 1989.
Above all, Rattan Singh was number examined.
The suit was decreed.
He was acquitted in the criminal case.
The said departmental proceedings ended in an exparte report submitted on 24.5.1996 holding that the charges against the appellant had been proved stating In the circumstances and facts stated above, I am of the companysidered opinion that the C.S.E. has absented himself intentionally inspite of sufficient opportunity provided to him.
However, despite acquittal, the departmental proceedings companytinued.
A criminal case was also initiated under Section 409/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was also held Sixthly, the amount in question is alleged to have been misappropriated on 11th April, 1989, whereas this defalcation was detected on 29th May, 1989 obviously after a long spell.
His companyplaints soon after his release from the hands of the bank officials had number been taken numbere of.
On an allegation made that he had forged the signature of a depositor Rattan Singh and fraudulently withdrawn a sum of Rs.
25,000/ was number proved and, thus, it was number entitled to recover the said amount.
It was held A sum of Rs.
25,000/ and the allegation against him that he had embezzled an amount of Rs.
Seventhly, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is so incompatible inconsistent and weak that numberconviction can be passed thereon.
Jasbir Singh, C.S.E. has fraudulently withdrawn Rs.
Eightly, there is numberdirect evidence worth the name of the record companynecting the accused in any manner with her offence.
It is number in dispute that embezzlement of fund was the principal charge against the appellant in all the proceedings.
Interestingly, Respondent Bank also filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.
On an appeal preferred thereagainst, the Addl.
B. SINHA, J Appellant herein was appointed as peon and has been working in the said capacity in Respondent Bank with effect from 4.4.1984.
25000/ bearing S.B. A c No.
