1969 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 1966, decided on 30th October 1968. Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

S. 477‑A ‑ Falsification of accounts‑Prosecution of accused totally misconceived and an innocent man prosecuted due to misinterpretation of papers Accused honourably acquitted‑Hope expressed that authorities concerned will make full reparation to accused. S. S. Haider for Appellant. A. Wadud Mian for the State. This appellant has been convicted under section 477‑A and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months by the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Bakerganj. The trial was held with the aid of 4 assessors 2 of whom found the accused not guilty and the other 2 assessors found him guilty. The prosecution case against the accused is that he falsely drew the pay of the months May, June, July and August, 1956 by signing the relevant registers although in fact he joined the school as a teacher only on 13‑9‑56. This is another instance of misguided prosecution. 'The accused has througout claimed that he joined the institution in May 1956. In a proceeding of the managing Committee of the School dated 21‑5‑56 the appointment of the accused was made with effect from 19‑5‑56 apparently the date on which he started to work. The proceedings had been made an exhibit at the instance of the accused as Exh. A. Nowhere has the prosecution given any explanation of this proceedings which did not bear any over‑writing or amendment. The members of the Managing Committee numbering 9 are responsible persons and this proceedings fully bears out the defence version of the case. The accused admitted all the signatures in the Acquaintance Rolls and Attendance Registers as his own. In fact, he claimed the same. The conviction has been made erroneously by the learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly based on two facts. The first is that in the months from May to August the name of the accused appears last in the relevant registers. Whereas in the register for September 1956 he was given the second place. The second argument in support of the conviction is that in Exh. 1. an "Inspection report" alleged to have been sent by the Headmaster in the column against the name of this accused it is shown that he has been a teacher of the school only for 3 days. 1t is admitted before me that both these names in the register and the inspection report are in the writing of the Headmaster. This Headmaster is being proceeded against in another trial. Therefore, statements found in these document which may appear against the accused is not at all binding on the accused. Secondly on merits I do not see that this promotion to the second place in the attendance register or the writing of 3 days in the column shown in Exh. 1 makes the accused guilty under section 477‑A. It is admitted that in the attendance register the names arc written by the Headmaster and it is the prosecution case that Exh. 1 is in the writing of the Headmaster. When the accused clearly claims that he signed the relevant register I do not see how the provisions of section 477‑A can be brought in prosecution may advance the theory as he was appointed in September 1956, therefore, the signatures in the relevant registers appearing prior to that date would show that an offence under section 477‑A has been committed but the fact is that the proceedings of the Managing Committee clearly show that the accused was appointed on 21‑5‑56 with effect from 19‑5‑56. So far as the entry made in the exhibit I to the effect that the accused was in school for 3 days it is not only not incriminating so far as the accused is concerned but also quite compatible with the circumstances of the case as evidenced by the Exh. 1 itself. The last column in Exh. 1 is for remarks. Now it is claimed by the prosecution that under the column length of service in the school the Headmaster has shown 3 days. But the prosecution and the learned Judge has hopelessly misread this document. In the "Remarks" column the Head master has shown that the appellant joined on 13‑9‑56. Vice A. H. Chowdury who had left on 19‑8‑56. The acquaintance Roll for August shows that A. H. Chowdhury was the Asstt. Headmaster. Therefore, the accused joined as Assistant Head. on 13‑9‑56. The Acquaintance Roll for September shows him as Assistant Headmaster. In fact, he is also shown as Assistant Headmaster in Exh. 1 itself. Therefore the Headmaster has shown him working for 3 days as Assistant Headmaster in his report Exh. 1 which the Headmaster signed on 17‑9‑56. The reference to A. H. Chowdury clearly shows that the accused's original appointment as Assistant teacher was converted into that of the post vacated by A. H. Chowdhury and that is borne out by the fact that against his name in the second column the designation is shown as Assistant Headmaster. Therefore, he is working as Assistant Headmaster in the school for 3 days only. This is clearly the correct interpretation of the document and is borne out by all the other documents filed by the accused and the prosecution. He was appointed as an Assistant teacher with effect from 19‑5‑56 as shown in Exh. A. He was promoted on 13‑9‑56 to the post of Assistant Headmaster‑Vice Mr. A. H. Chowdhury who left on 19‑8‑56. Therefore, it is, correctly said that he was working as Assistant Headmaster only for 3 days. Whether this promotion is legal or illegal that is not the matter before me. This was the report of the Headmaster submitted on 17‑9‑56 and Exh. 1 has been misread by the trial Court. In these facts and circumstances of the case this prosecution of the accused has been totally misconceived and an innocent man has been prosecuted due to the misinterpretation of the papers by the prosecution. I do not know what reparation can he made by the prosecution. The accused is therefore honourably acquitted. The appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside and I expect and hope that the authorities concerned will make full reparation to this innocent man. Appeal allowed.