SUKHAMOY MAITRA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sukhamoy Maitra was put on his trial on charges under Sections 120 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code, along with Rajdular Singh who was charged as an abettor, and the trial ended in the conviction of the appellant, who was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, and the acquittal of the co-accused. Of the assessors with whose aid the trial was held, three were of opinion that both accused were guilty and one thought that both should be given the benefit of doubt. The facts have been stated in the clear and careful judgment of the trial Court. I shall outline them as briefly as possible. Most of the facts are admitted and the points of controversy in the appeal have been fairly and fully placed before us in an able argument.

(2.) The appellant was a Sub-overseer in the Wards and Encumbered Estates Department in the district of Palamau and it was his duty to prepare estimates of repair works to buildings, etc," of the estates under administration, to supervise the works, to measure and certify the amount of work done and calculate what was due to the contractor to whom payment was made on bills prepared by this Sub-overseer. One of the estates under management under the Encumbered Estates Act was Bisrampur, and the charges relate to special repairs to the buildings at Bisrampur where the proprietor and some relatives entitled to maintenance from the estate resided. The buildings had been damaged in the earthquake of January 1934, and, after the preparation and loss of an earlier estimate, repairs were taken up in the financial year 1935-36 on an estimate prepared by the appellant dated 25 June 1935. The estimate amounting to Rs. 2382 was sanctioned in July 1935 by the Deputy Commissioner and the work entrusted to Rajdular Singh for execution. Advances were made to the contractor from time to time, that is to say Rs. 300 on 26 June 1935, Rs. 200 on 9th August 1935, Rs. 300 on 24 August 1935 and Rs. 250 on 20 January 1936. Bricks valued at Rs. 150 were supplied from a kiln belonging to the estate.

(3.) The rules of account required that the initial advance should be adjusted within six months. To meet this requirement, the appellant in December 1935 prepared a bill for work amounting to Rs. 801.11-0 which he certified to have been done as against the advances hitherto taken amounting to Rs. 800. The rules of account further required that the grant which had been sanctioned for the repairs during the year 1935-36 should be spent before the end of the financial year, otherwise the sanction would lapse and a fresh application for sanction would be necessary.