SULEKH CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even thought this case is no my board for a long time , the counsel for the parties have not put in any appearance. I, therefore procced to decide this revision petition on merits.

(2.) The petitioner along with Prem Shanker Shukla and Urmila Shukla was prosecuted under sections 419/420 Indian Penal Code with the aid of section 120-BIPC. Urmila Shukla was acquitted whereas the appellant and Prem Shanker Shukla were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and modified the sentence and reduced it to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were made concurrent,

(3.) Now. briefly staling the facts as disclosed by Public Witness . 9 the Manager of Lepakshi Handicraft Emporium, New Delhi, which was being run by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, are that no 22nd/23rd April 1970 he received a telephone message from a person who named himself as P.S. Shukla. M.P., asking him whether tapestry cloth and silk material was available with the Emporium to which he replied in the affirmative. According to him, around 25th of the same month another telephone message was received sometime in the evening that a person will be coming for the purchase of material and he would require about 3-4 days' time for making the payment of the bill. According to him, it was the practice of the Andhra Pradesh Government to sell goods on short term credit to VIPs. Further, according to him, Mr. Shukla alongwith his Assistant one Mr. Gautam visited his Emporium, selected the material and Mr. Shukla authorised Mr. Gautam who was accompanying Mr. Shukla to take delivery of the material. He identified both Mr. Prem Shanker Shukla and the present petitioner as the persons who had visited the Emporium, impersonated and cheated them of their goods pursuant to a conspiracy. He further says that on 27th of April 1970 another telephone call was received around 10 O'clock asking him to expedite the despatch of the material to Mavalankar Auditorium. According to him, the material was supplied to the petitioner who impersonated himself as Mr. Gautam on the entrance of the Emporium and the petitioner signed the packing slip. The amount of the bill was not received by the first week of May. He sent a letter on the address supplied for immediate payment but it was not received. He sent his typist to the Mavalankar Auditorium where he was told that there is no person nam.ed as Mr. Shukla connected with the Auditorium. He was thereafter informed by Kaveri Emporium that some Mr. Shukla. M.P" has also cheated them and the Emporium had made a report to the police.