NASIR ALI KHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revision applications, No. 2029 of 1949, preferred by Alla Noor Khan accused and no. 201 of 1940 by Nazir Ali Khan accused, against the order dated 18-6-49 of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Chhabra, committing the accused to Sessions under Rs. 120 (b), 420, 409 & 109, Penal Code, Both the accused have prayed in their respective applications for quashing the committal order. These revisions have arisen out of the same case and they are disposed of by one single judgment.

(2.) Nasir Ali khan accused was a Tehsildar in Tonk State, while Alla Noor Khan was a Patwari. At the time of the commission of the offence, Nasir Ali khan was acting as Nazim, Chhabra. Both the applicants were challaned under Sections 409 & 467, Penal Code, along with five others Abdul Majid Khan, Naimulla Khan, Muqrab Rehman Khan, Mohammed Shafi and Mohammed Amin, Abdul Majid Khan was a Nazim in the State and he was discharged by the Committing Magistrate. Naimulla Khan, Muqrab Rehman Khan, Mohammed Shafi and Mohammed Amin were Patwaris, who are still absconding and their challan was presented by the Police under Sections 512, Criminal P. C.

(3.) The charge against the the applicants was that they embezzled Rs. 13,000 out of a sum of Rs. 60,000 set apart by the Government of Tonk for distribution among the Ziminders by way Taccavi loans. The case of the prosecution is that this sum of Rs. 13,000 was drawn from the Treasury by Nasir Ali Khan through Alla Noor Khan, and after the same was withdrawn, a conspiracy for its embezzlement was entered into between both the applicants and the four absconded in pursuance of this conspiracy, the four absconders and Alla Noor Khan presented applications in the names of bogus persons to Nasir Ali Khan, Acting Nazim of Chhabra, for granting Taccavi loans in the names of those bogus applicants. In reality, the persons, in whose names the application were given, were nonexistent. These applications were granted by Nasir Ali Khan and Taccavi loans were sanctioned, and in this way a sum of Rs. 13,000 was embezzled. These are the brief facts of the case and are sufficient for disposal of the applications before me.