LACHMAN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Lachman Dass who was an accountant of the Municipal Committee, Budhlada has been convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- (in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months). His appeal to the High Court failed and he now appeals to this Court by special leave granted by this Court.

(2.) Ordinarily, this Court does not consider a case after the High Court and the Court below have concurrently found the accused guilty on facts. In this case, however, the judgment of the High Court merely brushes aside the entire defence version in one sentence which defence in our opinion merited close consideration with the prosecution case, to see which was believable. The learned Judge in the High Court who heard the appeal merely endorsed the findings of the Special Judge without attempting to weigh the evidence as was necessary in the appeal. We have accordingly allowed the appellant to read to us certain portions of the material evidence and have appraised it for ourselves. It is for these reasons that we shall narrate the facts a little more fully and then discuss the evidence in detail.

(3.) The incident is said to have taken place on the 24th March, 1964, at about 10 A. M. The complainant in the case is one Kishori Lal who was a plumber working in the Budhlada Municipality. For the work which he had done, he had submitted bills which it was the duty of the appellant to check and verify and certify for payment. It appears that the appellant had strictly verified these bills and reduced them from Rs. 935/- to Rs.683/- and odd. In fact a cheque in payment of all the dues had been prepared and handed over to the complainant as far back as 16th March, 1964. The case of the complainant was that the appellant had made demands on him for bribe and had also told him that Rs.10/- should be paid to him after the cheque had been encashed, threatening him at the same time that if the amount was not paid, the bills would be further scrutinised and reduced. This amount, it was stated, was paid by the complainant on 24th March in furthernance of this suggestion of the appellant and that is the foundation of the charge.