Audit proof not given, court clears two office bearers in misappropriation charge
The complaint on charges of cheating were filed before the Borivali police, claiming that Rs 3,000 collected from residents as maintenance were used for personal reasons, amounting to over Rs 3 lakh.
2 min read
The secretary and manager of a housing society in Borivali were booked in 2004. (Express File Photo)Clearing two housing society office bearers in a 20-year-old case of misappropriation of funds, a magistrate court in Mumbai said that mere oral testimony is not sufficient to prove that funds gathered for maintenance were misused. The secretary and manager of a housing society in Borivali were booked in 2004.
The complaint on charges of cheating were filed before the Borivali police, claiming that Rs 3,000 collected from residents as maintenance were used for personal reasons, amounting to over Rs 3 lakh. The complaint filed by a resident claimed that the manager had accepted that he used Rs 30,000 paid as maintenance by residents for the admission of his son with consent from the secretary.
It was further alleged that the manager had consented to return the amount but had not done so.
“So far as charges levelled against the accused is concerned, though oral evidence is significant it needs to be proved by leading the documentary evidence. In the FIR, it has been stated that an audit was conducted and in said audit it transpired that a certain amount had been misappropriated. If it is so, then the prosecution had ample opportunity to examine the auditor by producing all relevant documents. But, in this case prosecution did not examine any other witness other than the informant. Therefore, mere oral testimony of the informant is not sufficient to establish that members of the society had collected certain funds as a maintenance which was misappropriated by the accused,” the court said, in its order on February 15.
The complaint had alleged that while the manager was expected to make entries of the maintenance deposited by the residents in cash, it was not done. The court said that there was no sufficient proof given that the accused had custody of the society funds and that they had with a malafide intent used the money for personal gains.
You May Like
