S C BHAREL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 225-D of 1962 and 226-D of 1962. The appeals are directed against the judgment of special Judge, Delhi, dated December 19. 1962. By the said judgment the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced appellant Bharel to-

(2.) S.C. Bharel appellant was employed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Northern Electrical Division, C.P.W.D., New Delhi, during the months of January and February 1960 and H.C.R, Bhatia appellant was working under him as Section Officer. Bhatia appellant prepared a report Exhibit P. 12 asking for sanction for engaging additional labour called 'muster roll employees' from 1-1-1960 to 31-1-1960 for working at Primary Health Centre, Najafgarh. The sanction sought was for four employees consisting of one Diesel Engine Driver, two Fitters and one Wireman for operating the pumping Plant at the said Primary Health Centre, Najafgrah. The said report was written by Bhatia and signed by Bharel. Bharel forwarded it to K.S. Khera, Executive Engineer, who granted the sanction. One of the Diesel Engine Drivets was Prabhu Dayal, who left on 20th January, 1960. According to the prosecution, no substitute was employed in place of Prabhu Dayal for the period 21-1-1960 to 31-1-1960. Both the appellants are alleged to have entered int a conspiracy to misappropriate Rs. 44.00 by falsely showing the name of Tarlok Nath (P.W.D.) as having been employed in place of Prabhu Dayal for the said period of Tl days from 21-l-1960 to 31-1 I960. The prosecution further alleges that the method adopted by the appellants for misappopriating the said amount was that though no one was employed in place of Prabhu Dayal, name of Tarlok Nath (P.W. 1) was shown in the muster roll as the person who worked for the period of said I I days as Diesal Engine Driver. Bhatia forged the signature of Tarlok Nath (P.W. 1) on the said muster roll Exhibit P. i 3 acknowledging or the receipt of Rs. 44.00 though the amount was never paid to Tarlok Nath. Bharel is alleged to have signed the said muster roll certifying payments to all muster roll employees, including Tarlok Nath. Defence of appellant Bhatia was that Tarlok Nath had in fact been employed from 21 1-1960 to 31-1-1960 and his name had been correctly shown in the muster roll Exhibit . 13. He further pleaded that on 2-2-1960, the date when money was distributed to the muster roll employees for the relevant period, he was not present at the time of distribution and the money was actually paid to lhe employees by Bharel appellant. He denied having forged the signatures of Tailok Nath in the muster roll Exhibit P. 13. The defence of Bharel appellant, on the other hand. was that on 2-2-1960 he had to distribute money at five different Section 0 facers. So far as this centre was concerned he paid 'he money to Bhatia for distribution to the employees and Bhatia actually disbursed the money. Bharel appellant admitted that he did go to the certre on that day but that was alter the money had been distributed. He admitted having certified .the muster roll but that was done because Bhatia told him that he had paid the money to the employees concerned. A question was put to Bhar I apnellant if it was a fact that Tarlok Nath ^P.W. 1) never worked at the said centre for the said period. To this he replied that he did not know about it. It is admitted on both sides that the appellants charged T.A. for going to the centre on 2 2-1960. It is on these allegations that lhe appellants were charged as above.

(3.) So far as the question whether Tarlok Nath (P. W. 1) worked as a Diesel Engine Driver for the said period at Najafgarh Pumping Centre the evidence consists of the statement of Tarlok Nath (".W. 1) who deposed that he worked as a Diesel Engine Driver as muster roll employee at the said Centre from 1-12-1959 to 3-1-1960 and the wages for the said period were paid to him by Bharel appellant on 4-1-1960. On the night of 4-1-1960 when he reached the centre he was told by Ram Singh Head Machanic (P.W. 13) that as per instructions of Bhatia appellant his services were not required and thereafter he never worked at Najafgarh Centre. He further stated that for the period 18-1-1960 to 1-2-1960 he worked as a Fitter in the Central Secretariat. Ha denied the signatures in the muster roll Exhibit P. 13 acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 44.00for the period of said I (days. To the same effect is the evidence of Murli Dhar Store-keeper Electrical Stores Division, C Public Witness D.. New Delhi, (Public Witness .2) who is the father of Tarlok Nath. Santokh Singh (P W. 5), Section Officer, Electrical Division No. 1ll, C.P.W.D., New Delhi, stated that Tarlok Nath worked under him as Fitter in the Central Secretariat from 18 1-1950 to 1 2-1960 and was paid Rs. 75.00 for this period vide muster roll Exhibit P. 2. According to this witness, Tarlok Nath worked under him during subsequent periods also and was paid wages as shown in the muster rolls Exhibits P. 4 and P. 5. The duty hours, according to the said witness with respect to the period covered by Exhibits P. 2., P. 4 and P. 5 were 9-00 A.M. to 500 P.M. It may be pointed out here that Exhibit P. 3 shows that on 2-2-1960, the date when payment with respect to the said period had been received, Tarlok Nath was working at Western Court and there is evidence to show as to what his working hours were on that day. Lakha Singh (P,W. 4), who succeeded S.C. Bharel appellant as Assistant Engineer, stated that-