KAILASHCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 1978 (Surya Prakash v. The State).

(2.) THE appellants Kailashchandra and Surya Prakash were charged with offences punishable under sections 120 -B and 420 Indian Penal Code and Surya Prakash in addition with offences punishable under section 468 Indian Penal Code and section 5(1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and tried before the Special Judge, Indore in Special Case No. 1 -A of 1976 in their having conspired with each other, while of them Surya Prakash being a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation (for the brevity sake being referred to as LIC hereinafter) was a public servant, to cheat LIC that it may issue a life assurance policy for Rs. 20.000/ - on the life of Ramprasad (PW. 4), Kailashchandra being his nominee. They by falsely representing the said Ramprasad being 47 years old when in fact he was 72 years of age and no policy could have been issued to him, induced the LIC to deliver policy No. 28421813. Surya Prakash criminally misconducting himself, forged certain documents like the proposal form, statement to be filled in by the agent and confidential report TO respect of the said insurance. The Special Judge finding each of them guilty of the offences punishable wader sections 120 -B and 420 IPC has sentenced each of them to R.I for two years on each count with a fine of Rs. 1,500 in addition for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC failing the payment of which each is to undergo further R.I for six months, and Surya Prakash in addition to R.I for two years and Rs. 1,000 fine failing the payment of which further R.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 468/109 IPC and two years R.I and Rs. 1,000 fine and in the event, of non -payment of fine further R.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 5(1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with a direction for the substantive sentences in each case to run concurrently. Kailashchandra and Surya Prakash appeal.

(3.) THE explanation of the appellant Surya Prakash was that since 8 -12 -1971 the co -appellant Kailashchandra was the agent in his organization. He had not known Ramprasad (P.W. 4). He came to know him only after he appeared in the Court. The co -appellant Kailashchandra had made him meet a man aged about 47 years or 48 years described as Ramprasad as his uncle twice or thrice at his brother -in -law, Babulal Agrawal's shop, Agrawal Jewellers at Chowk Bazar, Bhopal.