BODILAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by one Bodilal against a judgment of the learned Special Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, convicting Bodilal for offences under sec. 5 (1) (c) read with sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sec. 477 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. For the first count Bodilal was awarded a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default six months further rigorous imprisonment; and for the second count he was awarded one years' rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE gravamen of the charge against Bodilal was that while he was a Patwari at village Dewan, district Jaipur he fraudulently prepared false counterfoils in respect of various amounts received from the cultivators between January, 1961 to June, 1961 and misappropriated a total amount of Rs. 227. 70. On 5 7 63, P. W. 25 Sualal lodged information with the Inspector General, Anti Corruption Department that Bodilal had realised more land revenues from the cultivators and while he deposited the correct amount in the Government Treasury, he pocketed the excess amount realised by him every year. THE Inspector General forwarded the complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police for investigations. During the investigations the Investigating Officer recovered a number of receipts from various cultivators. THE receipts so recovered from the cultivators showed that they did not tally with the counter foils retained in the Tehsil. Also they did not accord with the 'dhal Bachh' and 'siyah' registers maintained by the accused. THE 'dhal Bachh' register shows what amount is recovered from each cultivator. 'siyah' is the register which shows the receipt of the land revenue from the cultivators.

(3.) NOW, I may deal with the judgment in Somnath Puri vs. State (S. B. Cr. Appeal No. 558 of 1966, decided on 16-4-69), relied on by the learned Additional Government Advocate. Somnath Puri was a Traffic Assistant in the Indian Air Lines Corporation of India and was posted at Jaipur. He collected certain moneys from intending passengers for trunk call charges and deposited only a part thereof. Beri J. found himself in agreement with what was said in the Bombay case (5 ). Somnath Puri's case is distinguishable on facts. Somnath Puri was taking an amount for defraying the telephone charges. At the time of accepting the money, he could not be sure as to what would be the charges for making telephone calls for a particular passenger. In these circumstances at the time Puri accepted the money it was entrustment. It was only subsequently that when the money that was actually realised for telephone calls was less than the amount taken and when the accused had misappropriated the same that it amounted to breach of trust. Thus, at the time the money was taken there was no mis-representation or an element of dishonesty. The element of dishonesty came when the unutilised amount taken by the accused was misappropriated by him.