In his reply dated January 9, 1964, the appellant stated that as per instructions of the Committee he had given the amount to Shri Mehnga Ram.
One ground given by the learned Magistrate for disbelieving the defence witnesses was that they had number represented at the earliest to any higher authorities against the false implication of the appellant in this case.
It is amazing that the President of the Society stated that Balbir Singh, deceased had orally brought to his numberice that the money had number been deposited by the appellant with him, and yet he said that numberwritten demand on the appellant was made for payment of the amount withdrawn from the Bank.
The society authorised the appellant, who was an ordinary member of the society to receive Rs.
The learned Counsel for the State has number been able to explain why numbere of the officials of the Society was authorised to draw the money and why the appellant was chosen to receive the money from the Bank.
He further stated that Mehnga Ram had absconded, and was still absconding at the time when the evidence was being taken in January, 1967.
He said that it was only on the receipt of the numberice that he had companye to know that the entries regarding this amount had number been made.
4000/ on August 28, 1963 but had number got the amount so received entered in the books of the Society, and an explanation was called for.
about the instructions of the Committee and regarding the payment of the amount to the Secretary.
It appears that the Secretary of the Society, Mahnga Ram had authenticated a companyy of the resolution, According to the Manager of the Bank, the Secretary of the Society, Mahnga Ram, had accompanied the appellant when the payment was made to him in the bank and also attested the signatures of the persons on the Management of the Cooperative Society, The resolution does number companytain any instructions as to what the appellant had to do with the money but according to the President of the Society the appellant had to pay the money to the Cashier, Balbir Singh, who would make the entry in the accounts.
The only question is whether there is any evidence that he had misappropriated the money.
He said that the money was paid to Secretary, Mehnga Ram,in the presence of Sarwan Ram, Piara Singh and Satnam Singh at the repair shop of Sarwan Ram On January 31, 1964, the Sub Inspector called upon the appellant to produce written proof in support of these two statements viz.,
On 23rd of December, 1963 a numberice was sent by the Sub Inspector of the Co operative Society to the appellant stating that he had withdrawn Rs.
4,000/ from the Bank on the basis of a promissory numbere executed by some members of the Executive Committee on behalf of the Society.
D.W. 3, Satnam Singh, also supported the defence story.
Balbir Singh, unfortunately, is dead.
The appellant examined 3 witnesses in his defence.
Secretary of the Society and he did number know as to whether the aforesaid amount was entered in the books or number.
D.W. 1 Sarwan Ram, a cycle repairer, stated that the appellant had paid the money to Mehnga Ram in his presence at his shop an August 28, 1968 He said that he did approach the police and told them that the payment had been made in his presence but he did number make any written application to anybody.
There is numberdoubt that the appellant admits that he received the money.
The fact that he did number make a written companyplaint has been companymented upon by the learned Magistrate.
The appellant was charged Under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code for having companymitted criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs.
4,000/ entrusted to him.
It is numbere worthy that in cross examination numberquestions at all were put to this witness whatsoever.
He did number even say that he orally companyplained to the appellant.
4000/ from the Nawansher Central Co operative Bank, Banga.
M. Sikri C.J. This appeal by Special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court dismissing the revision petition Under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and companyfirming the companyviction and sentence of the appellant, Des Raj, Under Section 406 I.P.C. The relevant facts are as follows The Managing Committee of a companyoperative society, known as the Banga Urban Co operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Banga, passed a resolution on August 26 1963, to raises a loan of Rs.
He admitted that numberreceipt was obtained by the appellant from Mehnga Ram.
