KASHMIRILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four revision petitions arise out of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated October 15, 1973. As they relate to the same case and arise out of one judgment. I find it convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case that in the year 1968 accused petitioner Kishanlal Pahadiya was posted as Accounts Clerk in the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar. At that time, Shri Kashmirilal Chhabra was posted as Cashier, Badrinath Yogi as Assistant Cashier, and Sohan Singh as Despatch Clerk in the Municipal Council. On September 18, 1968 Kashmirilal Narang Accountant of that Municipal Council while examining the files of the paid-up vouchers detected that the voucher No. 26 (Ex. P. 2) dated September 3, 1968 has been tampered with and a separate paper had been affixed on the top removing the original. On that paper he found certain alterations and erasures. Suspecting some foul play, he examined the other relevant Cash Books and vouchers and found that one bill pertaining to Kartar Engineering Works was passed on 30-3-1968 for Rs. 3300/-, which was again processed for payment after altering the date from 30-3-1968 to 30-8-1968. By addition of figure 7, the cheque number also appeared to be altered. The Accountant Kashmirilal Narang called all the four accused persons and made enquiries. Sohan Singh told that he drew the cheque on seeing the orders of pre-audit on the vouchers and at the instance of Kishanlal Pahadiya and gave the cheque to him and at his instance took the cheque book to the Commissioner-Administrator for his signatures. Accused Badrinath Yogi informed that the entry in the Cash Book was made on the basis of the counter-foil of the cheque because the Accounts Clerk Kishanlal Pahadiya had told him that the voucher signed by the agent of the firm is lying on his table and he will give it to him as soon as he is able to trace out the same. Kashmirilal Chhabra stated that the relevant entries in the Cash Book were in his hand but were made at the dictation of his assistant Badrinath Yogi Kishanlal Pahadiya admitted that he was over-worked and had asked Sohan Singh to draw a cheque of the voucher but he denied to have committed any offence. The officers of the Municipal Council informally discussed the matter and on September 20, 1968 when the Commissioner of the Municipal Council Shri S. D. Sardiwal was away it was suggested that the amount may be deposited by all the four accused and whenever the real culprit will be traced out the money realised will be returned to them. The accused were assured that the matter will not be pursued in the police. The four accused then filed an application and deposited the money in the Municipal Council. On September 23, 1968 the Municipal Commissioner Shri S. D. Sardiwal lodged a report before the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar giving the details of the matter and requested him that legal action be taken in the matter. The Station House Officer -Kotwali, Manphool Singh, Circle Inspector investigated the matter and arrived at a conclusion that the four accused had conspired and in pursuance of that conspiracy Sohan Singh prepared the voucher Ex. P. 2, by making some alterations and erasures in the same and pasting and cutting of contingency bill on the back of the voucher, that he also prepared the cheque and got it signed and delivered the same to Kishanlal Pahadia. Badrinath Yogi and Kashmirilal Chhabra accused made entries in the register and Kishan Lal Pahadia presented that bearer cheque Ex. P 3 to Ganganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd , and got it encashed after signing under the assumed name of Patram. After completion of investigation the charge sheet against the four accused was filed in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate, Ganganagar who committed them to the Court of Sessions, Ganganagar and the case on transfer reached the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who tried the accused-petitioners for the offences under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IN the case of Abdul Kadar V. State (2) it has been observed that the legislature added S. 196-A (2) requiring the Section of the Government with a view that there should not be frivolous prosecutions on the ground of criminal conspiracy to commit non-cognizable offences of petty nature. Such conspiracies as have their object only the commission of non-cognizable offences that the sanction of the Government is required. Where commission of non-cognizable offence is merely a means to an end, this is, the commission of cognizable offence, sanction under section 196-A (2) would not be necessary.