State of H.P. vs Satpal Puri and Another

Deepak Gupta, J.—The aforesaid four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved in the same.

Both the accused were employees of the H.P Village Industries and Khadi Board, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the ''Board''). On 4th July, 1981, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Dharamshala. In this letter, it was alleged that the Board got an enquiry conducted into the affairs of the Pragpur Centre of the Board, where the accused were working, through one Sh. S.K. Kochar, Village Industries Organizer. Sh. Kochar found irregularities in the functioning of the said Centre. It was found that 1763-25 kgs. of cotton worth Rs. 14106/- which was meant to be given to the weavers was actually despatched from the Pragpur Centre to M/s. Manohar Weaving Factory, Jain Chowk, Nakodar through Bharat and Prince Goods Transport Companies. In this manner, the accused misutilized the cotton by sending it to the M/s. Manohar Weaving factory and embezzled a sum of Rs. 11000-88 paise by showing bogus payment to certain weavers. It was also alleged that a sum of Rs. 13,073-44 paise was drawn but never paid to the spinners. It was also found by Sh. S.K. Kochar that these two accused purchased uncertified cloth from M/s. Manohar Weaving Factory, Nakodar and sold the same by showing it to be as certified Khadi. Payment of Rs. 8227/- was made to the aforesaid firm by getting draft of Rs. 8227/- prepared from the Central Bank of India. Similarly, cheques dated 24.6.1978 for Rs. 3136.23 paise and dated 4.8.1978 for Rs. 5196-60 paise was got prepared from the State Bank of India, Dehra and this account was also not accounted for in the books of the Board. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR under Sections 408, 409, 420 and 468, IPC was registered. Since the embezzlement took place over a period of four years, four different challans were filed leading to four separate cases.

It would be pertinent to mention here that the allegations of the prosecution were that the offence in question took place in the late 1970s. The complaint was filed in the year 1981 and challan was filed in the year 1989. Thereafter, the case proceeded at a snail''s pace and the prosecution did not make earnest efforts to examine all the witnesses and finally the learned Trial Court following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Raj Deo Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar, closed the evidence of the prosecution on 10.12.1998 after numerous opportunities had been given to the prosecution to lead evidence.

The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the prosecution has failed to produce relevant evidence to bring home the charges. 13 witnesses who have been examined in these cases only gave the background of the case but their statements are not at all sufficient to convict the accused.

Faced with this situation, Sh. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General urged that the evidence of the prosecution had wrongly been closed. He submits that the offence was a serious one and that the prosecution later filed an application u/s 311 praying that 223 more witnesses are required to be examined. He, therefore, contends that the matter should be remanded to the learned Trial Court to record the evidence of these 223 witnesses. He further contends that a perusal of the zimni record shows that a number of opportunities were granted but the witnesses could not be examined since the counsel for the accused had sought adjournment.

It is true that on a number of dates, adjournments were granted at the request of the learned Counsel for the accused but on the other hand, it is equally true that on a large number of dates, the prosecution itself sought adjournment and the witnesses were not produced. Be that as it may the fact remains that the alleged offence took place more than three decades back. The trial continued after the complaint was filed in 1981 and challan was only filed in the year 1989. It took more than 8 years for the prosecution to file the challan itself. Then for another 9 years, the case was adjourned but the prosecution could not produce its evidence. In the facts of this case, we feel that the prosecution was granted sufficient opportunity to lead evidence and it would not at all be reasonable to subject the accused to undergo fresh trial after three decades of the alleged commission of offence.

In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeals which are accordingly rejected. Bail bonds, if any furnished, by the accused are ordered to be discharged.