JAGAT NARAIN NAG Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will deal with the two connected appeals listed above which have arisen from one and the same judgment in a criminal trial held by the Special Judge, Alwar, Jagat Narain Nag (the appellant in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 1972) and Ram Singh (the appellant in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 1972) who were working at the material time as Head Master and teacher-cum-cashier, respectively, in Gandhi National School Alwar, have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge as follows: - (i) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-or in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three years, each, under section 409, I. P. C. (ii) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, each, under section 468 I. P. C. (iii) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years each, under sec. 477-A, I. P. C. (iv) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, each, under section 120-B, I. P. C. (v) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-or, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, each, under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (C) and 5 (1) (D), Prevention of Corruption Act. All the five sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution against the appellants originated on a report in writing, Ex. P/36, dated April 6, 1960, mader by the Inspector of Schools, Alwar, simultaneously to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Alwar. THE Inspector of Schools reported that a total sum of Rs. 21154. 44, consisting of 13 different items entered as expenditure in the cash book has been embezzled by the appellants since they were not able to produce the receipts of payees against these items. He further reported that in addition to those 13 items, the accused were also suspected of having committed embezzlement of more amount.

(3.) IN the fore front of his arguments learned counsel for appellant Nag raised the question as to the validity of sanction, Ex. P. 265, for the prosecution of the appellant under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as given by G. K. Bhanot (PW 265) who was posted at the relevant time as Special Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Appointments Department. He raised the following points in respect of this matter. (i) The Special Secretary gave this sanction on his own without bringing the matter to the notice of the appointing authority, i. e. the Governor of Rajasthan. (ii) Even the Special Secretary, while giving the sanction, had no evidence before him to enable him to consider the matter properly; therefore, : the sanction was given by him without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.