PREM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Prem Prakash Bhatia, was working as Senior Telephone Operator in the Public Call Office, Kaman, Dist. Bharatpur, from 14 -10 -1965 to 4 -10 -1967. Daring that periond Moti Lal, PW 3 and Panchu Ram, PW 4 worked as his assistants. In the course of performance of their duties the three employees received certain telephone charges on account of calls made by the public. The Junior Telephone Operators used to deposit the collections with the accused who was incharge of the P.C.O. The accused was required to deposit the collections of the day as and when the amount exceeded Rs. 10/ - with the nearest post -offices in terms of Rules 201 and 203 of the Posts and Telegraphs Financial Hand Book Vol. 1, (hereinafter referred as the Hand Book) The prosecution story is that the accused Prem Prakash received a total amount of Rs. 1576.40P. directly and from his assistants from October 14,1966, to April 10, 1967, He, howver, failed to remit the collections as and when they exceeded Rs. 10/ -. When the matter was brought to light of the superior authorities, an inquiry was made. Thereafter the accused deposited Rs. 1559.35P. in 2 instalments of Rs. 1154.00 and Rs. 404.35 on March 29 and April 18, 1967, respectively. According to the prosecution Rs. 1.205P. in respect of 15 calls still remained unpaid by the accused. It was further alleged that the accused realised Rs. 3.15 and Rs. 8.15 against 2 receipts No. 61/222 dated 16.12.66 and No. U/44 dated December 31, 1966 from Angarilal PW 1. The accused accounted only for Rs. 2.15P and Rs. 1.15P. respectively and thereby he derived a wrongful pecuniary gain of a sum of Rs. 8/ -. by the abuse of his official position. On the basis of the above allegations. Special Police Establishment, Jaipur, registered and investigated the case Eventually, the police filed a challan in the court of the Special Judge, Jaipur City, for the prosecution of the accused under Section 409, I.P.C and Section 5(2). read with Section 5(1)(c), and Section 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), after having obtained sanction from the Divisional Engineer, Telegrapts, Jaipur, in accordance with the provisions of S,6 of the Act. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that he worked as Senior Telephone Operator. Kaman He further admitted that the amount on account of the telephone charges was received by him and his assistants and that he used to collect telephone charges from his assistants after 2 or 3 days. His defence was that he was not aware of the Posts and Telegraphs Rules, requiring him to deposit the money as and when it exceeded Rs. 10/ -, with the nearest post -Office. The accused also admits that Rs. 1576.40P. remained with him and that he kept the money in the almirah, lying in the telephone exchange office. He did not transmit the money to the post -office as he was ignorant of the rules The accused also stated that Babulal, P.W. 9, did not take over charge from him and, therefore, he could not give Rs. 1576.40P. to him. He did not dispute the fact of having deposited Rs. 1154 00 and Rs. 404.35P. on different dates, as alleged by the prosecution. He did not raise any objection in regard to the sanction alleged to have been obtained by the prosecution from the competent authority. He, in his defence, produced 2 witnesses. Gopeshwar Dayal, D.W. 1. and Karan Singh, 2. W. 2, The trial court, by its judgment dated August 1970, gave the following findings:

(2.) ON the basis of the above findings, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 409, I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) of the Act and keeping in view the young age of the accused, it sentenced him to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, en each count, in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were made concurrent.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State supported the judgment of the court below.