SHRI NATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Shrinath has filed these three criminal revisions against the judgments of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby conviction and sentence awarded to him by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in these cases were affirmed as described below: Particulars of cases Sentence affirmed by the Addl. SessionsJudge1. S.B. Cr. Rev No. 452/75 Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 472 IPC 6 mon -Shrinath v. State ths R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/* on eachcount and in default of payment offine further 6 months R.I. vide judg -ment dated 12 -12 -1975 in Cr. AppealNo. 6/1972.2. S.B. Cr. Rev. No. 453/75 Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 472 IPC 6Shrinath v. State months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/ - oneach count and in default of paymentof fine further 6 months R.I. videjudgment dated 12 -12 -75 in Cr. AppealNo. 7/1972.3. S.B. Cr. Rev. No. 451/75 Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 472 IPC 6Shrinath v. State months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -on each count and in default of pay -ment of fine further 6 months R.I.vide judgment dated 12 -12 -75 in cr.appeal no. 8/1972 These three revisions are disposed of by this order as they involved common questions of law and facts and also the relevant evidence in all the three trials were similar. The case according to the prosecution relating to criminal revision No. 452 was this. The petitioner was the Secretary of Bilara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Bilara in the year 1963. In the month of February 1963, he published an advertisement in India Express inviting applications for 91 posts for the Samiti. The applications were to be submitted on prescribed form obtainable from the office of the Samiti on payment of fees. Ishwarlal Garg of Kota applied for the post of Steno -typist. The Petitioner informed him that the Samiti had decided to call only those persons who would deposit Rs. 100/ - and asked him to send the same before 15 -3 -1963. It was given to understand that this amount was refundable. On 13 -3 -1963 the petitioner sent him another letter to remit the money at the Bombay address because the executive body of the Samiti was proceeding there to purchase machinery. Ishwarlal Garg, consequently sent money order of Rs. 100/ - to the petitioner at Bombay and was duly acknowledged by him vide his letter dated March 31,1963 from Jodhpur. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 4 -3 -1963, the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with and he had no concern with the Samiti. Thereafter the petitioner shifted to Jodhpur and got prepared Various seals of the Samiti and got some stationery printed in the name of the Samiti. The petitioner then started running office at Jodhpur as if he was running the Office of the Samiti Thereafter he took into his head to advertise 91 posts for the purpose of taking deposit monev and security amount from various applicants with a view to cheat them. Ishwarlal Garg did not hear anything from the petitioner and, therefore, he pressed the petitioner for further action and refund of Rs. 100/ -. The petitioner called Ishwarlal Garg for interview on 15 -5 -63. Ishwarlal appeared for interview and also asked for refund of the money. However, the money was not returned to Ishwarlal and also any employment was not given to him. On 10 -7 -1963, Ishwarlal made a report in the police station, Sardarpura at Jodhpur under Sections 465 and 467 IPC and after usual investigations, a challan was presented against the petitioner who was duly committed and then tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and convicted in the manner indicated above

(2.) THE facts in criminal revision No. 451/ - of 1975 Shrinath v. State are that the complainant was one Sohagsingh. He was also made to part with the security amount of Rs. 100/ - and he worked as an employee of the Samiti for about a month. The petitioner failed to pay him any salary and to reund Rs. 100/ -.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the cases carefully. From the facts as alleged by the prosecution it appears that the pivot of the prosecution case in all the three trials was that the petitioner was removed from the Secretaryship of the Samiti on 4 -3 -1963 and yet thereafter continued to give out that he was the Secretary of the Samiti and was acting on its behalf with a view to cheat various persons applying for the jobs under the Samiti in persuance of the advertisement published in the Indian Express. The petitioner could not have published the advertisement in the Indian Express as so many appointments were not to be made in the Samiti. The petitioner did so for cheating the various applicants by taking from them the security money. This pivot of the prosecution ease was disbelieved by both the courts below. It was thus observed by the appellate court in criminal appeal No. 6/1972 from which criminal revision No. 454/75 arises: The resolution Ex. P. 1 by which the accused was removed from service on 4 -3 -1963, is of course a false resolution. It is signed by Indernath while the other member who had put their signatures on it were not even present at the time of the passing of the resolution. Rajuram signed it on 24 -6 -1962 and has clearly admitted that he was not present when the resolution was passed. Inder Nath himself has admitted those facts. The minute book, in which the resolution was passed, remained in the custody of Indernath in his office as is admitted by the witness and he could have written anything in it and got some members to sign lateron. To my mind there is no sancitity of this resolution which was passed by Indernath most properly in an effort to protect himself when this case came to light and throw the entire blame on the accused. The appellate court maintained the conviction of the petitioner on the ground that the circumstances indicate that it was a conspiracy between Indernath and the petitioner to cheat the people. It was thus observed by the appellate court in the aforesaid judgment: To my mind these facts do not bring any protection to the accused and on the contrary they indicate that it was a conspiracy between Indernath and the accused to cheat the people and both of them worked with each other and hatched out the present plan to earn money by illegal means. The admitted facts in all the three cases are these. (i) Petitioner published the advertisement in the Indian Expess in the month of February, 1963 inviting applications for 91 jobs under the Samiti. (ii) Indernath was the President of the Samiti. (iii) The settled position is that the petitioner continued as the Secretary of the Samiti and he was never removed by any resolution like Ex. P. 1 (iv) The petitioner got prepared various seals of the Samiti and other articles and stationery. (v) He also established an office in Jodhpur. (vi) Numerous applications were received by the petitioner and he received some amount by way of deposit and in any case he received the amount by way of deposit by various applicants as specially alleged by the prosecution as indicated in three cases.