Criminal Revision No. 570 of 1999. Case: Duryodhan Mohanty Vs Republic of India. High Court of Orissa (India)

Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 570 of 1999
CounselFor Appellant: Devashis Panda, Adv. and For Respondents: Anup Kumar Bose, Asst. Solicitor General
JudgesS.K. Sahoo, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 313; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 34; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 405, 408, 409
Judgement DateFebruary 03, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Orissa (India)


S.K. Sahoo, J.

  1. The petitioner Duryodhan Mohanty faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. Case No. 10 of 1990 for offence punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that during the year 1984, he being the Branch Office Post Master of Damodarpur Branch post office and a public servant in the Department of Posts, Government of India and in such capacity being entrusted with Rs. 22,000/- (rupees twenty two thousand only) in respect of S.B. Account No. 906595 and S.B. Account No. 906616 of Jamini Kanta Nayak and Sumitra Subhalaxmi Nayak respectively, committed breach of trust in respect of the aforesaid amount.

    The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.1997 found the petitioner guilty under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only), in default, to undergo R.I. for one month more.

    The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Session which was heard by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1997. The learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.09.1999 upheld the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal, hence the revision.

  2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner was working as Branch Post Master in Damadorpur Branch Post office during the year 1984. He was entrusted with the work of transaction of S.B. Accounts and to maintain the relevant postal records i.e., the Branch Office S.B. Journals, Branch Office Accounts Book and Branch Office Daily Account etc. The petitioner was also in charge of receipt of deposits under different pass books and to make entries therein on receipt of cash under pay-in-slip from different account holders.

    It is the further case of the prosecution is that the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 11,100/- (rupees eleven thousand one hundred only) from one Jamini Kanta Nayak on 02.04.1984 against S.B. Account No. 906616 standing in the name of his minor daughter Sumitra Subhalaxmi Nayak and another Rs. 11,100/- (rupees eleven thousand one hundred only) against account No. 906595 standing in the name of Jaminikanta Nayak along with pay-in-slips and pass books. The petitioner made entries in the pass books and returned both the pass books to Jamini Kanta Nayak along with the counterfoils of the pay-in-slips. The petitioner was bound to make correct entries with regard to the receipt of amount in the Branch Office Daily Account, Branch Office Account Books and Branch Office S.B. Journal etc. but he fraudulently obliterated the figure '11' and the word 'eleven thousands' in both the office copies of the pay-in-slips relating to S.B. Account Nos. 906595 and 906616 and accounted for only Rs. 100/- against each of those two accounts and thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs. 22000/- (rupees twenty two thousand only) from the aforesaid two accounts.

  3. On 30.03.1990 on the basis of the First Information Report (Ext. 19) submitted by Sri Krushna Chandra Mohapatra (P.W. 6), Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Bhubaneswar, R.C. Case No. 17(S) of 1990 was registered against the petitioner under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. On the direction of Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bhubaneswar, P.W. 6 took up investigation of the case, seized documents from the postal authority, examined the witnesses, collected specimen writing and signatures of the petitioner and sent them to the Govt. examiner of questioned documents (hereafter for short "GEQD"), Calcutta for examination and opinion. He also received the opinion from the GEQD, Calcutta. The charge of investigation was taken over by Sri B. Das, Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Bhubaneswar who on 30.10.1990 on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 22000/- (rupees twenty two thousand only) from the S.B. Accounts Nos. 906595 and 906616.

  4. The learned Trial Court framed charge under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code on 23.11.1993 against the petitioner and since the petitioner refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, summons were issued to the witnesses.

  5. During course of trial. the prosecution examined six witnesses.

    P.W. 1 T.S. Shambhogue was working as Deputy Divisional Manager, Vigilance Unit, Syndicate Bank, Hyderabad who stated about the taking of signatures and specimen handwritings of the petitioner in his presence by the Investigating Officer in some papers.

    P.W. 2 Kailash Chandra Mohanty was the Inspector of Post Offices (Complt. and Public Grievance, Bhadrak Postal Division) who produced certain documents before the Investigating Officer, CBI, as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police which was seized.

    P.W. 3 Shyam...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT