AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PEPSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J.: - The appellant was a Sub-Divisional Officer in the Public works Department, Pepsu, and was, at the material dates, in charge of certain works at a place called Karhali. It was part of his duties to disburse the wages to the workmen employed in the works, and the procedure usually followed was that he drew the amount required from the treasury, and paid the same to the employees against their signatures or thumb-impression in the monthly acquittance roll.

(2.) The First-Class Magistrate of Patials, before whom the appellant was put up for trial, framed charges against him under S. 465, I. P. C. for forging the thumb-impression of Parma, and under S. 409, I. P. C. for criminal misappropriation of Rs. 51, and after a full trial, acquitted him. He held on the evidence that "there was a khalasi Parma by name in the service of the accused at Kehrauli", and that though the thumb-impression in the acquittance roll was that of the appellant, the prosecution had not established that the amount drawn by him did not reach the hands of Parma.

(3.) In support of the appeal it is argued by Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi that the conviction of the appellant is illegal, as sanction had not been obtained under S. 197 (1), Criminal P. C. for his prosecution, that the evidence on record is insufficient to establish an offence either under S. 465 or S. 409,I. P. C. and that there having been an acquittal of the appellant by the trial Magistrate, the materials on record did not justify a reversal of that verdict by the appellate Court.