MADAN MOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In July-August 1963, the appellant, one Kamal Dev and Danesh Kumar, the two other original accused before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, were working in different capacities in the Treasury in Ferozepur Cantonment. The appellant was the dealing clerk and amongst his other duties he had to scrutinise and pass contingent pay bills of the Central Jail at Ferozepur presented at the Treasury.

(2.) On July 18, 1963, Roshanlal (page No. W. 19), the accountant in the said jail, prepared a contingent bill, (Ex. PB), for Rupees 8273.19 P. The drawing authority being the Superintendent of the Jail, the bill was placed before the Superintendent, Teja Singh (page No. W. 18), for his signatures. The bill required an endorsement in the nature of a certificate by him, but as similar bills had in the past been objected to by the Treasury on the ground that the certificates therein were not properly worded, Teja Singh left the column blank and signed the bill leaving it to the appropriate clerk in the Treasury, who happened to be the appellant, to fill it in. he also left blank the space where the person carrying the bill, first to the Treasury and then to the State Bank, would sign as the person to whom payment was to be made. On July 19, 1963, Naunit Rai (page No. W. 11), the accounts clerk in the jail, took the bill to the Treasury and approached the appellant so that the appellant may fill in the certificate on the bill over the signature of Teja Singh in suitable language. The appellant directed him to go first to Darbara Singh (page No. W. 15), who was the token clerk, saying that the bill would come to him in routine and he would then fill in the certificate. Naunit Rai, therefore, handed over the bill to Darbara Singh and obtained a token in acknowledgment of his having handed over the bill in the Treasury. Naunit Rai then returned to the Jail with the token.

(3.) It was not in dispute that at the time the two blanks where the certificate and the endorsement, Exts. PB/1 and PB/3, would be filled in, were blank. Nor was it in dispute that the signatures purporting to be of one Ram Nath and the words "received payment" were not yet written on the bill. According to the procedure followed in the jail, it would be the person receiving the money under the bill who would pass such receipt in the bill and affix his signature thereto.