DES RAJ Vs. STATE J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two accused were tried for commission of offences u/S. 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468 and 477-A, RFC, by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu, however, the learned- trial Court acquitted accused-Dr. Gugli Razdan and convicted and sentenced the appellant herein, Des Raj, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for commission of the offence u/S. 5(2) P.C. Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonrnent for six months, on each count for commission of offences u/Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468 and 477-A, R.P.C. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) P.W. Dr. Wachaspatl, Was the CMO, Udhampur, he had gone to Japan on a training course. In his absence his charge of the office was with accused No. 1-Dr. Gugli Razdan. Accused No. 2, who is appellant herein, was the cashier. He is alleged to have prepared treasury voucher dated 31-8-1976 for withdrawal of Rs. 1500/- on account of G.P. Fund advance in the name of Dr. A. K. Dhar. He got the voucher signed from accused No. 1 (now acquitted), who was acting as drawing and disbursing officer and then the appellant withdrew the amount from the treasury and reflected its payment to P.W. Krishanlal in the cash book entry dated 31-8-1976 as there was no employee with the name of A. K. Dhar working in the office, however, the accused in his statement submitted to the Accountant General reflected payment of said amount to one Dr. A. K. Dhar. The case of the prosecution against the accused No. 2 in nutshell was that by making false documents and fictitious entries in the record the accused withdrew Rs. 1500/- from the treasury and misappropriated the same by misusing his official position as a public servant. Charges were framed against both the accused for commission of the above said offences and were called upon to plead. The accused, however, abjured their guilt in answer to the charge, so the prosecution examined ten witnesses for proving its case against the accused. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution has convicted the accused No. 2 herein whereas accused No. 1-Dr. Gugli Razdan has been acquitted. The acquittal of accused No. 1 has however not been challenged by the State in appeal and thus has attained finality. As regards the appellant herein learned trial Court found the case of the prosecution completely proved, therefore, he has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Advocate General and perused the record of the case thoroughly.