JADISH PRASHAD AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directly against the judgment, dated, Sept. 18, 1973, passed by the Special Judge, Jaipur, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:-

(2.) Appellant Shambhu Dayal

(3.) It is further alleged that accused Jagdish Prasad contacted Giarsilal on April 23, 1963, morning and requested him to open the seals and check the cash and the account books lying there. Giarsilal did the needful in the presence of the staff of the Board and accused Jagdish Prasad. He discovered that the cash book had been written upto April 20 only and that even then no balance had been struck for that day. He arrived at the book balance on the basis of entires already made and concluded therefrom that the book balance should have been Rs. 766.12 as per details below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_59_LAWS(RAJ)7_19791.html</FRM> As against the book balance of Rs. 766.12, the actual cash balance found in the chest was Rs. 566.11 leaving a shortage of Rs. 200.01. The Chairman was unable to explain the shortage. It transpired during the investigation that with a view to concealing the embezzlement of Rs, 200 01 by him, appellant Jagdish Prasad prepared in his own hand and under his signatures a receipt purporting to show that he had received payment from the Cashier of Rs. 200.00 on April 21, 1963. He caused an endorsement to be made on the back of that document by appellant Shambhu Dayal, one of his relations and an employee of the Board, to the effect that the said document had been with the Cashier at the time of inspection and that after obtaining the same from him on April 23, 1963, necessary entry was made in the cash book. Shambhu Dayal actually made the entry in the cash book on April 23, 1973, after Giarsilal had already examined it and left Shri Madhopur. Sualal, the Cashier, told the police during investigation that he had not paid any amount to accused Jagdish Prasad on April 21, 1963, and that there was in fact no question of any such transaction taking place on the even date, for the same was Sunday and Sualal had formally obtained leave from that date to April 24, 1963. It is on the basis of these facts and circumstances that the investigation officer made the allegation that the receipt in question had been fabricated by appellant Jagdish Prasad with the help of appellant Shambhu Dayal.