PREM SHANKER MISRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Prem Shankar Misra, who has been convicted by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption) for U. P., Lucknow under Section 468, I. P. C. and under Section 5 of the Act II of 1947. For each offence he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The two sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. According to the prosecution, the appellant was a clerk in the accounts section in the office of the District Executive Engineer at Izatnagar in district Bareilly in the employment of O. T. Railway in the year 1950. The accused forged three payment orders (Exs. P-3, P-4 and P-5) during the period from April to June 1950. The forged payment orders were in favour of a fictitious person Sarju Mal. Soon after preparing the forged payment orders, the accused presented these documents for payment at Railway Station, Bareilly. The accused on each occasion succeeded in obtaining payment of a sum of Rs. 107/- upon each payment order. The fraud was detected by an officer of the Special Police Establishment, Lucknow, The payment orders in question were sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. It was found that the documents in Question had been forged. The accused was, therefore, prosecuted for forging the three payment orders, and for fraudulently obtaining money on the basis of the forged payment orders.

(2.) The case was tried by the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, U. P., Lucknow. The accused pleaded not guilty. He denied having forged any of the three payment orders. He also denied having received any money on the basis of those payment orders. The learned Special Judge was satisfied about the forgery of the three payment orders, and about the receipt of money on the basis of the forged payment orders. Prem Shankar was, therefore convicted under Section 468, I. P. C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5 CD (d) of Act II of 1947.

(3.) I noticed that the case was tried by the learned Special Judge, Lucknow. I entertained some doubt as to whether this appeal ought to be heard at Allahabad or at Lucknow. The learned Counsel for the parties were agreed that, this appeal ought to be disposed of at Allahabad. It was painted out that, although the case was heard at Lucknow, the case really relates to district Bareilly. It was, therefore, urged that, this appeal ought to be disposed of at Allahabad, and not by The Lucknow Bench.