D S BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant D. S. Bhandari has been convicted by the learned Special Judge for Rajasthan Jaipur City hereinafter called the Special Judge under Section 420 I. P. C. and Section 468 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count. He has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 5 (1) (d) r/w Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE appellant D. S. Bhandari was serving and functioning as a Development Officer Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter called the L. I. C. at Sumerpur under Branch Office Pali Raiasthan. While functioning in that capacity it is alleged by the prosecution that he secured two insurance policy proposals Nos. 7245-323 and 6747323 for an amount of Rs. 10, 000/- and Rs. 20, 000/-reapectively from one Dayalal Shah of village Arepura on 20th of January, 1965. although the prosecution alleged that the accused had wrongly shown the village Bairemi. The prosecution case is that Dayalal Shah whose proposal forms for insurance were got filled by the accused was suffering from paralysis since 30th of October. 1959. and also from High blood pressure and consequently Was not at all a fit person to be insured under the Rules of the L. I. C. The accused, according to the prosecution, before getting the forms filled knew the state of health of Dayalal Shah fully well. Nevertheless he got filled the aforesaid two proposals and aslo managed to obtain two false medical reports on 291-1965 and falsely mentioned the name of Danmal as insurance agent in respect of those two proposals although Danmal was not party to that proposal. This according to the prosecution was done by the accused with a view to gain undue pecuniary advantage tor himself or to earn a departmental credit. The prosecution further alleged that the accused dishonestly induced the L. I. C. to deliver the aforesaid two policies and thereby criminally misconducted himself as a public servant. The police after investigation submitted a challan against the accused for committing offences under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947, r/w Section 5 (2) of the Act and Sections 420 and 468 I. P. C.

(3.) THE accused pleaded not guilty in reply to the charge read over to him. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and had exhibited a number of documents in support of its case. The accused in his examination under Section 342 Criminal P. C. denied to have procured business from Dayalal Shah and consequently contested the charge levelled against him. besides stating other facts in his defence which I do not think it necessary to state them here at this stage. After the trial the accused was convicted as stated above. Being dissatisfied accused has appealed.