PYARE LAL BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Revision No. 237 of 1956 confirming that of the Sessions Judge, Alwar, convicting the appellant under S. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 200/-.

(2.) To appreciate the questions raised in this appeal the following facts, either admitted or found by the High Court, may be stated. On November 24, 1945, one Ram Kumar Ram obtained permission, Ex. PB, from the Government of the former Alwar State to supply electricity at Rajgarh, Khertal and Kherfi. Thereafter, he entered into partnership with 4 others with an understanding that the licence would be transferred to a company that be floated by the said partnership. After the company was formed it put an application to the Government through its managing agents for the issue of a licence in its favour. Ex. P.W. 15/B is that application. On the advice given by the Government Advocate, the Government required Ram Kumar Ram to file a declaration attested by a Magistrate with regard to the transfer of his rights and the licence to the company. On April 8, 1948, Ram Kumar Ram filed a declaration to that effect. The case of the prosecution is that Ram Kumar Ram was a friend of the appellant, Pyarelal Bhargava, who was a Superintendent in the Chief Engineer's Office, Alwar. At the instance of Ram Kumar Ram, Pyarelal Bhargava got the file Ex.. PA/1 from the Secretariat through Bishan Swarup, a clerk, before December 16, 1948, took the file to his house sometime between December 15 and 16, 1948, made it available to Ram Kumar Ram for removing the affidavit filed by him on April 9, 1948 and the application, Ex. P.W. 15/B from the file and substituting in their place another letter Ex.. PC and another application Ex. PB. After replacing the said documents, Ram Kumar Ram made an application to the Chief Engineer on December 24,1948 that the licence should not be issued in the name of the company. After the discovery of the tampering of the said documents, Pyarelal and Ram Kumar were prosecuted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alwar,- the former for an offence under S. 379 and S. 465, read with S. 109, of the Indian Penal Code, and the latter for an offence under Ss. 465 and 379 read with S. l09, of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted both the accused under the said sections and sentenced them on both the counts. On appeal the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under S. 465, but maintained the conviction and sentence of Pyarelal Bhargava under S. 379, and Ram Kumar Ram under S. 379, read with S. 109, of the Indian Penal Code. Ram Kumar Ram was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and Pyarelal Bhargava to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. Against these convictions both the accused filed revisions to the High Court, and the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of Ram Kumar Ram but confirmed those of Pyarelal Bhargava. Pyarelal Bhargava has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant raised before us three points, namely, (1) the High Court has wrongly relied upon the confession made by the accused before Shri P.N. Singhal, Officiating Chief Secretary to the Matsya Government at that time, as that confession was not made voluntarily and, therefore, irrelevant under S. 24 of the Evidence Act; (2) the said confession having been retracted by the appellant, the High Court should not have relied upon it as it was not corroborated in material particulars; and (3) on the facts found the offence of theft has not been made out within the meaning of S. 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Another argument, namely, that the statement made by Pyarelal Bhargava before the Chief Secretary was not a confession in law, was suggested but not pursued and therefore, nothing need be said about it.