H. Hanumanthappa vs State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan

This revision petition is by the petitioner who has been convicted by the Trial Court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467 and 409 of the IPC and the sentences passed, namely three months'' simple imprisonment, and Rs.500/- fine in respect of the offence punishable u/s 465 of the IPC. six months'' simple imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine in respect of the offence punishable u/s 467 of the IPC and six months'' simple imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine in respect of the offence punishable u/s 409 of the IPC with default sentences, was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court by dismissing the petitioner''s appeal.

The case of the prosecution in short is that the petitioner while working as cash clerk in Kadur General Hospital and being incharge of distributing the salary to the staff of the General Hospital forged the signatures of several persons and misappropriated the amount of Rs.899/- belonging to C.W.5, Rs.3,480/- belonging to C.W.3, Rs. 1,000/- due to C.W.7, totalling Rs.5,379/ and thus committed the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467 and 409 of the IPC.

Following the case being registered against the petitioner, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The prosecution was called upon to lead evidence and it examined 11 witnesses and producing fifty three documents. The accused led no defence evidence alter he was questioned u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and only Exs.D-1 to D-3 are marked in support of his defence.

The learned Trial Judge after appreciating evidence found the accused guilty and accordingly convicted the petitioner for the offences as aforesaid. The Lower Appellate Court had no difficulty in agreeing with the Trial Court in all respects and hence the appeal was dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the records of this case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought for conviction being set aside and put forth the following grounds in support of his arguments. The first ground is that no permission was obtained as the petitioner was working as Cash Clerk in Kadur General Hospital and therefore question of attracting Section 409 of the IPC did not arise and the delay of two years, 1 month and 10 days in lodging the complaint is also a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. The last ground put forth is that the forgery of the salary disbursement register has not been proved.

Elaborating the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel took me through evidence on record and argued that the Trial Court could not have convicted the petitioner at the first instance and the Lower Appellate Court committed the same error by confirming the Trial Court Judgment.

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that this is a ease, which is based purely on documentary evidence and the evidence of P.Ws.2. 3, 6, 7 and 9 clearly establishes that the petitioner was incharge of preparing of pay bills and disbursement of salary and other amounts to the respective staff members. Secondly the expert opinion has confirmed that the signatures of the aforesaid witnesses did not tally with the signatures found in the disbursement register and therefore the forgery of the signatures by the accused is also established beyond reasonable doubt and the report of the hand writing expert given is per Ex.P-48. as to the act of the accused in forging the signature of the staff. Therefore both the Courts rightly upheld the prosecution case. No interference is called for.

Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the State, and after going through the evidence on record. I am of the view that the Courts below committed no error in convicting the petitioner. The fact that all the witnesses examined before the Trial Court namely P.Ws.2. 3 and 9 have stated in one voice in their evidence that they have not been paid the amount due to them and the accused has forged their signatures. The said evidence of the witnesses is further confirmed from the evidence of P.W.8, Ashwathappa, Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory and the Trial Court has referred to the opinion given by the said expert in Para 22 of the judgment. The opinion given clearly indicates that the signatures of P.Ws.2. 3 and 7 have been forged As far as entrustment is eoneerned it is the evidence on record that the accused was incharge of the disbursement of the amount to the staff and therefore question of Section 409 getting not attracted also will not arise. As far as the sanction for the prosecution of the accused is concerned, the act of the accused does not fall within the purview of his duties in as much as, the duty cast on the petitioner does not permit him to forge the signatures of his own colleagues and misappropriate the amount which was actually due to the staff members. As far as delay is concerned, the delay will not be fatal as the complainant was interested in prosecuting the accused on false grounds.

For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction of the petitioner does not call for interference. As far as the sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has got a family and he is also ready to pay the amount. On the other hand, submission of the learned Government Pleader for the Stale is that the act of the accused does not require any leniency nor it is a ease which can be considered with reference to Probation of Offenders Act.

Having heard the both sides, I see no case is made out nor are there any mitigating circumstances pointed out for this Court even to interfere with the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

For the above reasons, the petition is rejected.

The Trial Court to take necessary steps to secure the presence of the petitioner to undergo the sentence.