SHRIRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals filed by Shriram appellant impugning the two judgments of the Special Judge No 2 of Jaipur City both dated 17th November. 1964. convicting the appellant for offenees under Section 5 (1) (c) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act No. 2 of 1047 (herein-after to be referred as the Act) and under Section 409 Indian Penal Code As both the appeals are said to he suffering from a common infirmity. I propose to dispose them of by one judgment

(2.) THE appellant was charged for mis appropriating the Government funds and for that four cases were challaned by the Special Police Establishment in the court of the learn ed Judge, but the learned Judge tried cases Nos 9 and 25 ot 1963 jointly and so also rases Nos 1 and 2 of 1964 were consolidated and thus he turned out two judgments in the afore said four eases filed against the appellant Shri ram.

(3.) THE prosecution story in all these cases is that the appellant Shriram was in the beginning a Divisional Pay Clerk in the Bikaner Slate Railway but his services integrated with the Indian Railways when the Government of India look over the State railways and thereafter his order of appointment of his present post in the Northern Railway was issued by the General Manager of that railway. It is alleged that the accused-appellant misappropriated during the period between December. 1958 to November. 1959 a total amount of Rs 1187 87 np and it was for this misappropriation that two challans were submitted by the Special Police Establishment, Jaipur under Sections 5 (1) (c) of the Act and 409 of the Indian Penal Code Both these cases were, however, ordered to be consolidated by the Special Judge Two similar challans were also submitted against the appellant for misappropriating Rs 14,783 56 np. during March 1960 to October. 1960, but these two eases were also directed to he jointly tried and thus in the aforementioned cases two judgments of conviction were pronounced by the learned Judge. It is against these judgments that the appellant has filed these two appeals.