TRIVENI PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid three revisions were heard analogous and so this common judgment is being passed. The revisionist was convicted for offences under Section 120B read with Section 420, 465 and 468 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was, however, sentenced to remain in court custody till the rising of the court.

(2.) IT was submitted by the revisionist 'slawyer that the revisionist was charged for entering into a conspiracy to cheat the Government of Rs. 75,643.20 by passing a bill for the aforesaid amount on account of supply of electric main switches to Gaya Sub -division of Bhagalpur Electric Works Division during the period April 1965 to April 1966. But, however, as Divisional Accountant posted at Bhagalpur, his business was only to verify and check the bills on the basis of measurement book and other certificates authenticated under the signature of concerned Engineers posted at Gaya where main switches had been supplied. So his official duty of checking and passing bills was based on the certificates issued by the concerned authority of Gaya and he was not required to make physical verification whether actual supply of the concerned electric materials was made. So there was no question of his being in league with other officials of the Electric Works Division or officials of Sub -division at Gaya or Dhanbad or anywhere else. So his conviction was based on insufficient evidence regarding conspiracy or regarding preparation of false bills or regarding cheating and defrauding the Government of its money and securing any benefit for himself on account of the alleged offence. The order of conviction was further assailed by the revisionist 'slawyer on the ground that in the first place, evidence adduced in one case was used in the other cases and sanction for prosecution was also accorded by the Accountant General, Bihar, even though the revisionist was an employee of Public Works Department.

(3.) THE order of conviction was next attacked on the ground that sanction for prosecution of the revisionist was accorded by A. G., Bihar, whereas the revisionist was an employee of the Public Works Department. In this connection Ext -3 (a) has been cited as the proof of his initial appointment. This Annexure shows that the revisionist was appointed in the Public Works Department by the Superintending Engineer, East Bihar Circle. But Annexure -3(c) shows that the Senior Deputy Accountant General, Bihar, Sri K. P. Josef issued letter, O.O. No. WMI -6 - 196 dated 12.3.1960, appointing the revisionist on the basis of his being qualified in the D. T. Examination held in 1960 as Sr. Accounts Clerk in the Darbhanga Waterways Division No. 2. So it appears, perhaps, the revisionist was appointed in the A. G. 'sOffice on the basis of some Examination. In such a circumstance, the sanction accorded by the A. G., Bihar when the revisionist was working as Divisional Accountant in the Electric Works Division, Bhagatpur, was not illegal and/ or improper. Perhaps, initially being appointed in the Public Works Department, the revisionist was later absorbed as an employee of the A. G. Office and so he was working on lien in the Electricity Department of Bhagalpur Works Division. So the sanction for prosecution being granted by the A. G., Bihar was neither illegal nor improper.