D S BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT D.S. Bhandari has come up by way of appeal to this Court against the judgment of conviction passed by learned Special Judge for Rajasthan Jaipur city hereinafter called the Special Judge. The learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 420 and 468 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - on each count. He further convicted the accused under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. The learned Judge further directed that in case of default in payment of fine, the accused shall have to undergo two months' further rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY the prosecution case is like this: The appellant D.S. Bhandari was a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the L.I.C.) at Sumerpur under Branch Office, Pali, Rajasthan. Functioning in that capacity, according to the prosecution, the appellant secured two insurance proposals No. 7245 -323 and 6747 -323 in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - and Rs. 20,000/ - respectively from one Dayalal Shah knowing that Dayalal Shah was suffering from paralysis since 31st of October, 1959, and also from high blood pressure. Further prosecution case is that the appellant himself filled the aforesaid two proposals and managed to obtain two medical false reports on 29 -1 -1965 and falsely mentioned the name of Danmal as Insurance Agent in regard to the aforesaid two proposals, although Dannlal never signed the proposals According to the prosecution, on the proposals, signatures of Danmal were forged by the accused with a view to gain undue pecuniary advantage for himself and also to earn a departmental credit. The prosecution further alleged that the appellant dishonestly induced the L.I C, to deliver the aforesaid two policies and thereby criminally misconducted himself as public servant. When these facts were brought to light F.I.R. Ex. P. 217 was lodged on 15 -11 -1965 with the Superintendent of Police Establishment, hereinafter referred to as the S.P.E. and C.B.I. The case was registered on the same day i.e. on 15 -11 -1965. After obtaining necessary sanction the police submitted a challan on 9 -9 -1966 before the Special Judge. The accused pleaded not guilty in reply to the charge. After completion of the trial the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned above.

(3.) MR . V.S. Dave the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the incident related back to January 1965. The challan was put in against the accused on 9 -9 -1966 and the accused had remained in jail in pursuance of the order of conviction for 5 days and looking to the pecuniary loss which the accused has suffered and also the present state of his health a lenient view in the matter of substantive sentence be taken. The learned Counsel further argued that the appellant has a large family consisting of two sons and three daughters who are still unmarried and there is no other earning member excepting the accused -appellant to maintain them. On this basis the learned Counsel urged that the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case will be served if the substantive sentence is reduced to one already undergone by him.