Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 561A

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 561-A ; Expunction, of remarks from judgments-Bank defalcation case Remarks in judgment that applicant, Manager of Bank, in his statement as prosecution witness, had not given satisfactory account of incident and suppressed some facts, not justified by evidence on record-Trial Magistrate misconstruing evidence and arriving at conclusion on irrelevant considerations and condemning applicant on basis of evidence of another witness, Bank employee, at first suspected and detained by police, but later released-Impugned passages having. reacted unfavourably against applicant, expunction of such remarks held justifiable. Not only there was the statement of accused cashier that he had taken out the impugned sum of money from the safe but the entries in the vault register giving the details of the cash and the denomina tion of the currency notes were actually made by him. Thus it left no room for doubt that the amount was taken out from the cash safe and this amount remained in possession of accused cashier and was intended to be delivered to Assistant Cashier, prosecution witness. In these circumstances the Court observed that the applicant could not be held resonsible for the shortage which subsequently occurred, nor could he be said to be guilty of lack of vigilance and supervision. The, Court further proceeded to observe: "It is not understood how he Magistrate proceeded to remark that the applicant had not given the satisfactory account of the incident when his evidence was recorded. The Magistrate misconstrued the evidence and reached the conclusion on irrelevant considerations in utter disregard of the statement of accused Cashier who was facing the trial. The position of the applicant was vindi cated by the entries made in the vault register. The Magistrate failed to take into consideration that the attitude of Assistant Cashier P.W. towards the applicant could not be favourable on account of what had happened on the discovery of the shortage. According to his own showing he was suspected, threatened and forced to give an undertaking in writing to make the contribution. Later he was detained at the police station…