http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SUBASH CHANDRA BOHIDAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SECRETARY, BUROBHADI S.C.S.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1995

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7)  16        1995 SCALE  (6)436

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          J U D G M E N T K.Venkataswani,J.      Leave granted.      The parties  in both  the appeals  are  the  same.  The appellants was  acting as  Secretary of  the respondent  Co- operative  Society  from  16.3.1972  to  24.1.1978.  It  was alleged by  the  respondent  that  during  this  period  the appellant has  misappropriated a  total sum of Rs.2107/- and Rs.1250/- and on that ground two criminal cases being I.C.C. Case  No.57   of  1981   and  I.C.C.   Case  No.56  of  1981 respectively were  filed against  the appellant.  The  trial court rejected the defence put forward by the appellant that the amounts  were taken  as advances  after  getting  proper sanction by  the concerned  authorities and therefore, there was no  case of  misappropriation. Consequently,  the  trial court found  the appellant  guilty of misappropriation under Section 408  IPC in  both the  cases and  sentenced  him  to undergo rigorous  imprisonment for  six month  and to  pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous  imprisonment for  six months in I.C.C.Case No.57 of  1981 and  rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay  to fine  of Rs.1250/- in default of payment of which to further  undergo rigorous  imprisonment for six months in I.C.C. Case No.56 of 1981.      The appellant  preferred two  appeals to the Additional Session Judge, Balangir in Criminal Appeal Nos.15/9 of 1988- 89 and  Criminal Appeal  No.16/19 of  1988-89.  The  learned Additional Sessions  Judge reduced the sentences to rigorous imprisonment for  two months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month in Criminal Appeal No.15/9 of 1988-89 and ligorcus imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.15000/- in default to further undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  one  month  in Criminal Appeal No. 16/19 of 1988-89.      Being aggrieved,  the appellant  preferred two revision petitions  being   Criminal  Revision  No.185  of  1991  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Criminal Revision  No.186 of  1991 to  the High  Court,  but without success.  Hence, these  two special  leave petitions are preferred  by  the  appellant  against  the  High  Court orders.      When the  special leave  petitions came  up for hearing before this  Court on  18.3.1994, the  following  order  was passed.      "S.L.P. (Crl) No.59/94.           Learned counsel  for the petitioner      submits that  the petitioner’s  plea  in      the trial  court  itself  was  that  the      total sum  of  Rs.1250/-  was  no  doubt      taken by  him but  it was  taken  as  an      advance after  being sanctioned  by  the      president on  the ground of his illness.      The learned  counsel places  reliance on      the document Annexure-I to the S.L.P. at      page  13-A   which  is  a  copy  of  the      Resolution  dated   15.2.1977   of   the      Cooperative  Society   which  has   been      produced in  support of this submission.      Learned counsel  candidly accepted  that      this document  has been produced for the      first time  in this  Court and  the same      was inadvertently  not produced  by  the      petitioner at  an earlier stage. In view      of this  statement  and  the  submission      made by  the  learned  counsel  on  that      basis we  direct issue  of notice on the      S.L.P.  returnable   on  18.4.1994.  The      notice to  state that  the matter may be      finally disposed  of at the notice stage      itself.           The petitioner  is directed  to  be      released on  bail to the satisfaction of      the C.J.M., Balangir, Orissa.      S.L.P. (Crl) NO.195/94 :           Learned counsel  for the petitioner      submits that  the petitioner’s  plea  in      the trial  court  itself  was  that  the      total  sum   of  Rs.2107/-   (Rs.1287  +      Rs.820) was no doubt taken by him but it      was taken  as  an  advance  after  being      sanctioned  by   the  President  on  the      ground  of   his  illness.  The  learned      counsel places reliance on the documents      Annexure -1 and 2 to the S.L.P. at pages      15 and  17 which  are the  copies of the      Resolutions dated 20.7.73 and 15.6.74 of      the Cooperative  Society Ltd. Which have      been  produced   in  support   of   this      submission.  Learned   counsel  candidly      accepted that  these documents have been      produced for  the  first  time  in  this      Court and  the same  were  inadvertently      not produced  by the  petitioner  at  an      earlier stage. In view of this statement      and the  Submissions made by the learned      counsel on that basis we direct issue of      notice  on   the  S.L.P.  returnable  on      18.4.94. The  notice  tostate  that  the      matter may be finally disposed of at the      notice stage itself.           The petitioner  is directed  to  be      released onbail  to the  satisfaction of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    the C.J.M.,Balangir, Orissa."      In spite  of  service  of  notice  on  the  respondent, counsel for  the respondent  was not  present when  the case came up  for hearing  and  no  challenge  was  made  to  the submission made  on behalf  of the  appellant to dispute the documents relied on by the appellant.      In the  circumstances, we  deem it proper to accept the statement of  the appellant  based on  the document filed in support thereof,  namely,  the  resolutions  passed  at  the Board’s meetings  dated 20.7.1973,  15.6.1974 and  15.2.1977 respectively. On  acceptance of the documents, the charge of misappropriation levelled against the appellant must fail.      Consequently, the  appeals are  allowed, the conviction and sentences passed against the appellant in both the cases are set  aside and  the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Section 408 IPC.