S D USMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment rendered in C.C. 9 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional Special Judge, Madurai. C.A. Nos. 234/75 & 635/75 are preferred by the accused Nos. 2 and 1 respectively challenging the correctness and validity of their convictions and sentences of R.I. for one year and imprisonment till the rising of the Court respectively imposed therefor. C.A. 626 of 1976 is preferred by the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor on being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Judge acquitting accused Nos. 3 and 4 of all the charges with which they stood charged and tried, and accused No. 5 of the charge under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). C.A. No. 627 of 1976 is preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Criminal P.C., on the ground that the sentences imposed on accused Nos. 1 and 5 for the offences of which they are convicted by the trial Court, are grossly inadequate and not commensurate with the gravity of the offence

(2.) BEFORE the trial Court, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried mainly for the offences - (1) under Section 120-B read with the Section 420, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act (2) under Section 420 I.P.C. simpliciter and (3) under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act simpliciter

(3.) APART from the first charge, charge Nos. 2 & 5 are against accused No. 1 on the allegations that in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid and in the course of the same transaction, the first accused submitted false medical reimbursement claims under Exhibits P. 4 and P. 8, claiming amounts as noted in the respective charges, on the false representation that he had incurred the expenditure for an alleged treatment of himself or any one of his dependents and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. Further, the first accused stood charged under charges Nos. 3 & 6 on the allegations that he abused his official position as the public servant by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by submitting false medical reimbursement claims for alleged treatment of himself or of his dependents as detailed in charge Nos. 2 and 5, and thus obtained pecuniary advantage to the extent of the amounts mentioned in each of the respective charges sanctioned and paid to the accused No. 1 on the abovesaid false claims and thereby the first accused committed offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act