4,000/ in the Imperial Bank or the treasury at Roorkee.
It is said that the appellant admitted that he had spent some of the money in the .marriage of his daughter and some was used in his shop and Rs.
He first tried to prove that he had deposited the amounts.,
The appellant practically admitted the receipt of the money except a few items which were also found by the Special Judge to have been received by him.
In the present appeals we are number companycerned with the other accused, namely, the brother of the appellant, as he was acquitted.
102404 of 1961, Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 21, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
43087/ /3 received between April 20, 1949 and May 24, 1949 and number accounted for.
42,000/ .
The appellant filed three appeals before the High Court which were heard together.
52,144/ had number been deposited in the treasury or the Imperial Bank at Roorkee.
The appellant was asked to make good the loss immediately but failed to do so.
We arc also numberconcerned with four of the trials we arc only companycerned with three trials with respect to three sums of money in these three appeals.
1623/4/ , received between April 14, 1949 and May 23, 1949 and number accounted for appeal No.
9611 9 6 received between April 20, 1949 and May 24, 1949 and number accounted for and appeal No.
The police registered a case under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation prosecuted the Executive Officer as well as the appellant and his brother who was the Assistant Cashier at the relevant time.
11,000/ had been given to the Executive Officer and the remainder was at his house.
So the magistrate discharged the three accused of that case.
10,000/to Rs.
He was however inconsistent in his defence as to what he did with the moneys which he had undoubtedly received.
In the alternative his case was that a practice had been prevailing for many years in the office of the Board under which the Executive Officer and other employees of the Board used to take advances from the cashier from time to time by sending slips and the cashier was utilised as a banker for all officers and servants of the Board, including the Executive Officer.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
The matter was then reported to the Chairman of the Board, who called Munnalal and took his explanation as to the alleged embezzlement.
Appeal No.
Munnalal was the cashier of the Municipal Board of Hardwar and had been working as such since 1932.
104 is companycerned with a sum of Rs.
He also admitted that his duty was to deposit any sums above Rs.
In 1949 there was an audit of the accounts of the Board and on May 24, 1949, the auditor found that the money received by the Board from April 20, 1949, to May 23, 1949, totalling Rs.
The case was transferred by the High Court to a magistrate in Meerut but that case was number proceeded with as an application was made to withdraw it on the ground that the case was companyered by s. 5 2 of the Act.
The present appeals by special leave are against these judgments of the High Court in the three appeals.
2 of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act , as the appellant is the same in all the appeals.
Thereupon the appellant was suspended and the matter was handed over to the police for investigation.
The case of the prosecution was that these sums were received by the appellant during the period mentioned above and had number been deposited either in the treasury or in the Imperial Bank at Roorkee as required by the rules.
737,738 and 744 of 1960.
He was in charge of the cash and it was his duty to see that whenever the funds in his possession exceeded Rs.
Frank Anthony and P.C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
4,000/ they were deposited in the treasury or the Imperial Bank at Roorkee.
April 17.
C.Mathur and C.P. Lal, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J. These are three appeals by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
103 is companycerned with a sum of Rs.
Thereafter necessary sanction was given for prosecution under s. 5 2 of the Act and four prosecutions were launched against the appellant and his brother.
