1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner was tried along with one, Nazimuddin. He was charged under sections 409 and. 471 of the Penal Code, but Nazimuddin was charged under sections 467 and 409/109 of the said Code.
2. The case against the petitioner was that he as Superintendent of Babur Hat State Orphanage had been entrusted with a sum of Rs. 8,500 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandpur, to purchase some blankets for the use of the orphans resident in the orphan--age. He purchased 245 blankets for the sum of Rs. 4,338.95 at the rate of Rs. 17.71 each under cash memo. No. 22, dated the 26th January 1963, from the co-accused, Nazimuddin, a salesman of the Show Room of the Dacca Central Jail, but in collusion with the latter fabricated a false cash memo. Bearing No. 38 to show a sale of 264 B.
3. T. Blankets for a sum of Rs. 6,468 at the rate of Rs. 24.50 each. In this way, it is alleged, he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2129.05, by submitting a bail dated the 29th January 1963, to the Sub- Divisional Officer, Chandpur, for the sum of Rs. 6,468 along with the said fabricated cash memo.
4. The case against Nazimuddin was that he forged the cash memo. No. 38, dated the 26th January 1963, which was originally issued for the purchase of only one blanket on the 31st of January 1963, from the Dacca Central Jail at a price of Rs. 24.50.
5. Both the petitioner and Naeimuddin were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge and Ex-officio Special Judge of Comilla and their convictions and sentences have been upheld, on appeal, by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
6. The petitioner alone has come up for special leave to appeal and the main contention advanced on his behalf is that the number of blankets claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner were `consistent with the number actually found in stock by the police in the orphanage. This contention may have had some force, if A the charge was for the misappropriation of blankets but there was no such charge. The charge made was that he had misappro--priated a sum of Rs.
7. 2,129.05 by showing a false purchase of 264 blankets, whereas he had, in fact, purchased only 245 blankets from the Dacca Central Jail.
8. The purchase of 264 blankets was not corroborated by any carbon copy of the cash memo. Or by any entry in any register in the Dacca Central Jail Depot. On the other hand, the carbon copy of the cash memo. Bearing No. 38, which was marked as Exh. 2/1, was found to have been actually issued on 31-1-63 in respect of only one piece of blanket. It is clear, therefore, that cash memo. No. 38, which was filed by the petitioner in support of his expenditure for the purchase of 264 blankets, was a false document, and such a false document could only have been created with the assistance of Nazimuddin, the Salesman.
9. The contention of the learned Advocate that the villain of the piece was Nazimuddin and it was he who had misappropriated the amount by falsely showing a sale of 264 blankets, can hardly be accepted, for, if that was so, then the petitioner would not have filed that cash memo. In support of his bill which was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandpur.
10. The next contention of the learned Advocate is that the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not support the prosecution story, but we are unable to agree with this contention. In the present case, there was no direct evidence of the actual sale but this much is certain that the register of the Jail shows that on the date the alleged purchase was made there were only 246 blankets is stock and, therefore, 264 blankets could not possibly have been sold.
11. The evidence in this case is mainly documentary and these documents establish beyond any reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioner. There is no substance in the contention that the relevant documents have not been taken into consideration. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere.
12. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.