SHARIFUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rampur under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. The charge against the appellant is that he had committed breach of trust in regard to a sum of Rs. 409.66p. The High Court of Allahabad confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and being aggrieved thereby the appellant as filed this appeal by special leave.

(2.) The appellant, Shariful Islam, was working as a Collection Amin in Tehsil Shahabad from March 1961 to July 1961. One of his duties was to receive the amounts payable to the Government. On 26th March 1961 he is alleged to have received a sum of Rs. 200/- from one Raghubir Singh and a sum of Rs. 300.41 p. from one Sri Ram Pandey through his brother, Paras Ram Pandey. Instead of crediting these amounts in the Treasury, he credited 0.25 p. and 0.50 p. only, misappropriating the balance, viz. Rs. 499.66 p.

(3.) The defence of the appellant was that the persons had only paid 0.25 p. and 0.50 p. respectively and that he was falsely implicated in the charge as the Tehsildar was hostile to him. Having seen the relevant evidence through which learned counsel for the appellant has taken us, we are of the opinion that the High Court was justified in confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant. It was common ground that a receipt book was issued by the Shahabad Tehsil to the appellant and that he issued two receipts Nos. 29 and 50, from out of that book to Raghubir Singh and Sri Ram Pandey, Raghubir Singh has stated in his evidence that he owed a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the Government towards a Taqavi loan and that he had paid Rs. 200/- to the appellant on 26 March 1961, in part payment of that amount. A witness called Roshan Singh says that Raghubir Singh had paid the sum of Rs. 200/- to the appellant in his presence. Similarly the evidence of Paras Ram Pandey shows that he had paid to the appellant a sum of Rs. 300.41 p. on behalf of his brother, Sri Ram Pandey. An important aspect of the evidence of these witnesses is that the admission by them that they owned a particular sum of money to the Government was against their self-interest. These witnesses have hardly been cross-examined and not even a suggestion has been made to them that they had any reason for implicating the appellant falsely. The appellant says in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Tehsildar was inimical to him but of that there is no evidence whatsoever.