THAKUR SINGH RAHI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through record with the assistance of the learned counsel.

(2.) The appellant was prosecuted for having committed offence under Section 5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 467, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Shri Surjit Singh, Special Judge, Mandi, Sessions Division at Mandi in Corruption Case No. 1 of 1988. By means of said judgment dated 1-6-1990, the appellant was found guilty for having committed all the offences, mentioned above, for which he was charged. He was sentenced to undergo oneyear rigorous imprisonment under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also to pay a fine of Rupees 500/-, in default of payment whereof to under go further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, similarly for offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- on each count, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, for commission of offence under Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment whereof, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. It is this judgment that has been assailed by the appellant in the present appeal.

(3.) According to the prosecution case, the appellant was working as Accountant-cum-Cashier in the Government Polytechnic, Sundernagar. While working in this capacity, it was a part of his duty to process the bills, submitted by different persons for supply etc. made by them to the Polytechnic and amount became payable for such supplies. This payment was to be made after obtaining necessary orders for payment of money from Drawing and Disbursing Officer. In the month of April, 1983, Shri Paras Ram Dhhiman, workshop instructor, is stated to have sent the requisition for three cubic metres of sand and coarse aggregate each to the officer-in-charge in the Polytechnic, such requisition was endorsed by the head of department, Shri Hari Chand making recommendation for procuring the same. After observing the codal formalities, supply order was placed with one Shri Biri Ram, PW-4. This supplier-Biri Ram, according to the prosecution, submitted the bill claiming Rs. 180/- for the sand and Rs. 210/- for coarse aggregate and the total value of the bill came to Rs. 390/-. This amount was written both, in words and also in figures. After submission of the bill by Biri Ram to the Store Keeper, entries of it were made by the Store-keeper as well as by Store instructor Paras Ram in the relevant registers. The bill in question was submitted to the branch concerned along with the requisition and was processed by the appellant in his capacity as Accountant-cum-Cashier. Finally, a sum of Rs. 390/- was disbursed to the supplier and entry to that effect exist in the cash book as voucher No. 1067.