HC acquits its employee from charge of misappropriating fund

Observing that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Bombay High Court today acquitted its employee in a 33-year-old case in which he was charged with misappropriating a 'Diwali fund' account set up by a group of 31 employees of the high court.
A bench headed by Justice V M Kanade upheld the acquittal of S R Wagh by a Magistrate on the ground that the prosecution had failed to produce record or document to show that the amount deposited by members in the fund had not been refunded to them by the accused who was a secretary of the scheme at the relevant time.

In the absence of any such record, it would be difficult to prove that the accused had misappropriated the amount lying in the fund, the judges said adding that he was entitled to be acquitted.
The judges agreed with the order of the Magistrate acquitting him on April 12, 1991, on the ground that no records had been maintained by the accused and there was no evidence to show that he had destroyed the records.
The accused said that he was falsely implicated and added that he had already distributed the deposits lying in the fund to the members as well as the dividend due thereon. For this, he had even issued receipts to the members. They were asked to hand over the receipts, but they did not do so and hence there was no record with him to show the deposits and the related transactions.

The fund was started in 1964 by a group of high court employees to save money through monthly contributions and receive deposits and dividends every year on the occasion of Diwali. The members were entitled to get loans from the fund.
The affairs of the fund went on smoothly till 1979. However, in October 1980, the accused and the then secretary of the fund abruptly went on leave. On his return, members asked him about their contributions to the fund and he claimed to have given them all their dues at a meeting.
The members claimed that they had not received their amounts and they complained to the then High Court Registrar and the Chief Justice, but they did not offer help. In 1981 a police complaint was filed and a case was registered in the following year.