MUSTAFIKHAN MUMTAJKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by his conviction for the offences punishable under sections 468 and 477-A of the Penal Code and section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of rupees one thousand imposed upon him, accused No. 1 in Special Case No. 5 of 1984 before the learned special Judge, Gondia, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Facts, which led to the appellant's prosecution and conviction, are as under: the appellant was working as Junior Engineer and was in-charge of execution of construction of tanks at Kudwa, Dhakni and Mundipar in Gondia sub-Division. This work was to be executed under the Employment Guarantee scheme. The appellant had the services of four muster clerks to keep a track of persons employed for the work of construction of these tanks. Between 7-1-1976 and 11-3-1976, same set of 21 labourers were shown to have been engaged at one and the same time for construction of the irrigation tanks at Kudwa, Dhakni and mundipar. Payments were shown to have been made by the appellant to bogus labourers engaged. The investigation revealed that in all a sum of Rs. 6,764. 10 ps. was misappropriated by the appellant abusing his position as Supervisor. Accused No. 2 was a labourer engaged and he was made to put his thumb marks on the muster rolls to evidence receipt of monies by the fictitious persons, who were shown to have been engaged for the works. After a report, an offence was registered and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was sent up in the court of Special Judge at Gondia.

(3.) Upon consideration of material before him, the learned Special Judge charged both the accused offences punishable under sections 409, 467 and 468 read with section 109 of the Penal Code and sections 5 (l) (d) and 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Upon consideration of evidence tendered before him, the learned Special Judge acquitted accused No. 2 of all offences and also acquitted the present appellant of the offence punishable under section 467 of the Penal Code. However, he convicted the appellant of the other offences and sentenced him, as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal.