BHAIYA LAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A.

(2.) IN this case the appellant was con victed for an offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to 2 years' R. I. and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. IN default thereof he was sentenced to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 161, I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for two years. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(3.) THE appellant has denied the char ges and claimed that he had been involved in this offence by Rajendra Singh Kush waha falsely. His further contention is that he was not dealing with the cases of recovery. It was dealt with by Ram Adhar. He had absolutely no concern with the recovery and could not have helped Rajendra Singh Kushwaha in stalling recoveries from him. In support of this contention he has examined D. W. 1 Ram Adhar Awasthi, a dealing Clerk in the Agriculture Office. He was employed as Junior Clerk.