GHANSHYAM LAL CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal taken by Ghanshyam Lal Chaudhary against the judgment, dated March 10, 1971, of Mr. T. G. Bhagat, Additional Special Judge, Rajasthan, Jaipur, convicting the appellant under sec. 168 I. P. C. as also under sec. 5 (2 , read with sec. 5 (1) (d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a period of one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo four months simple imprisonment on the second count. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were made concurrent.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case, as alleged by the prosecution, are that the Anti Corruption Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, challaned accused Ghanshyam Lal, Accounts Officer, Water Works Department, for offences under secs. 420, 468 and 168 I. P. C, as also under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. THE allegations against the accused were that during the period between 1960 and 1963 Ghanshyam Lal, while functioning as Accounts Officer in the Water Works Department, Jaipur, and being a public servant, obtained illegal pecuniary advantage by cheating. He ran a shop and did business in the name of M/s. Mahavir Jain Sewing Machine Co. , Jaipur, with the assistance of his wife Mst. Snehlata. THE Anti Corruption Department further alleged that Gopal Lal was shown as owner of the Company and it was the accused who in fact had obtained illegal pecuniary advantage, amounting to Rs. 17,662. 40 P. and he also forged signatures of his son Ripunjaya Prasad on receipts for Rs. 272/-, Rs. 260/- and Rs. 140/ -. THEse receipts were given in lieu of the amounts obtained from the branches of the Social Welfare Department. Udaipur and Kota, to which certain goods bad been supplied. It was further alleged that a sum of Rs. 1050/- had been obtained from the Executive Engineer, Jaipur, as the cost of certain commodities provided. In this manner the accused had obtained Rs. 2042/-, in trade. THE accused, being a public servant, was legally bound not to have engaged in trade or business and he should not have run the firm, known as M/s. Mahavir Jain Sewing Machine Co. , Jaipur. Further charge against Ghanshyam Lal was that while employed in the Water Works Department, as Accounts Officer, he got illegal pecuniary advantage amounting to Rs. 105. 84 p. on account of T. A. Bills for the journey performed in the months of July and August, 1961. THE tour in fact had been undertaken in connection with the business of the firm M/s. Mahavir Jain Sewing Machine Co. , Jaipur. It was also asserted that the appellant was found in possession of the assets, amounting to Rs. 42,075/-, which were disproportionate to his known source of income. On submission of the challan after investigation by the Anti-Corruption Department the accused was charged under sec, 168, I. P. C. as also under sec. 2 (5), read with sec. 5 (l) (d) and sec. 5 (1) e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. THE accused denied the indictment and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined 28 witnesses and produced 138 documents. In his statement recorded under sec. 312. Cr. P. C. the accused denied the prosecution allegations. His main plea was that he was not concerned with M/s. Mahavir Jain Sewing Machine Co. It was Gopal Lal who was the proprietor of the firm. Raghunandan, P. W. 26 was the Manager of the firm. He further entreated that the alleged journey to Udaipur related to his official duty. In his defence he examined seven witnesses and produced 79 documents. THE trial court by its judgment, dated March 10, 1971, acquitted the accused of the two charges, one concerned the T. A. bill amounting to Rs. 105. 84 P. and the other appertained to the assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income. THE court however, gave a positive finding that the accused being a public servant did engage in trade in the name of M/s. Mahavir Jain Sewing Machine Co. , Jaipur. THE business of the concern was carried on by him and in his premises. THE accused had signed letters on behalf of the firm and had engaged in trade and had obtained illegal pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 602/ -. THE trial court, however, gave categorical finding that pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 17,662. 40 p. has not been proved. THE appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced, as stated above.

(3.) GULRAJ Bahadur has deposed in the clearest terms : "no tender on behalf of Mahavir Jain Sewing Machine Company was submitted by me any where in Rajasthan, nor did I secure any order. " The witness further told the trial court : "i know that Raghunandan used to come to the Water Works office for securing business but I cannot give out details in regard to the dealings and also about securing business. " The witness again speaks : "i was never curious to know about the personal affairs of the accused. I do not know what capital and from what source was invested in Mahavir Jain Sewing Machine Co. . . . I know Gopallal resident of Bundi had concern with M/s. Mahavir Jain Sewing Machine Co. "