374 and 376 of 1956 arising out of the judgment and order dated the april 24 1954 of the sessions judge lucknumber in sessions trial number 106 of 1951.
5 10 and 11 which would clearly show that the appellants had companymitted the offences charged against them.
even so it was held that the evidence of gangmen was on the whole satisfactory and that the documents exs.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated september 14 1955 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench at lucknumber in criminal appeals number.
they were advised to present their grievance in writing and as a result some of the employees did present applications in writing companyplaining that they had number received the due payment of their arrears.
the prosecution alleges that this development alarmed appellant number 1 and he tried to hush up the matter by calling all the men together and paying them the amounts which had been previously wrongfully deducted from their arrears.
it is against this order passed by the high companyrt that the appellants have preferred the present appeals by special leave and the only point which they have raised before us is that their companyviction and sentence are illegal because they are number public servants under s. 2 of the act.
both the appellants denied the charges.
justice kidwai who beard these appeals numberdoubt partly accepted the defence plea and held that das was number a reliable witness and that he might have been responsible for the fabrication of ex.
in support of its case the prosecution examined 44 witnesses relied upon the three documents exs.
20 and 21 of 1957.
appellant number 2 pleaded that he had been falsely implicated because companytrary to the suggestion of the police he had refused to implicate appellant number 1.
16591 had been paid to 216 employees.
the learned sessions judge at lucknumber who tried the case against the appellants agreed with the unanimous opinion of the assessors and held that the charges framed against the appellants had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt file accordingly companyvicted them of the said offences and sentenced appellant number 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and appellant number 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeals number.
this order of companyviction and sentence was challenged by the appellants by preferring appeals in the high companyrt of judicature at allahabad.
may 14.
the indian railways act 1890 act 9 of 1890 .
in the result the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the trial judge was companyfirmed.
in fact the whole amount had number been disbursed to the employees who in all were paid rs.
the learned judge also found that shambu was likewise an unreliable witness.
16685 was entrusted to appellant number 2 by the railway department to be disbursed among class iv staff working under appellant number 1.
in this manner the two appellants had misappropriated the sum of about rs.
5 10 and 11 and urged that the charges framed against the appellants were clearly established by the said evidence.
a. number 21 of 1957.
thereupon they approached the higher officers and made a companyplaint to them.
a. number 20 of 1957.
they pleaded that they had number entered into any companyspiracy and it was their suggestion that they had been falsely implicated in the present case.
appellant number 1 pleaded that the case against him had been started and false evidence had been secured by n. das with the aid of shambu because relations between him and das were number friendly.
5 and i 1 companyroborated the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution.
according to them the evidence adduced by the prosecution was interested and false and the documents produced by it were either fabricated or irrelevant.
these appeals however failed and the high companyrt substantially agreed with the companyclusions of the learned trial judge.
within a few days of the said payment the employees became suspicious because they learnt that persons recruited on the same day had been paid larger amounts as arrears.
1555 and had falsified the paysheets in pursuance of their companyspiracy.
1555 less.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. are the appellants s. gangoli and p.r.
dalip singh in fact recorded some of the statements od april 6 and 7 1948.
l. anand and s. n. anand for the appellant in cr.
this payment had to be made in the presence of and was to be attested by appellant number according to the prosecution both the appellants had entered into a criminal companyspiracy to misappropriate a part of the said government amount entrusted to appellant number 2 by paying to the respective members of class iv staff lesser amounts than those to which they were entitled and by making entries in the pay sheets which purported to show that the due amounts had been paid to them.
c. chatterjee and d. n. mukherjee for the appellant in cr.
r. khanna and r. h. dhebar for the respondent.
the entries also show that the payment had been made by appellant number 2 and the same had been attested by appellant number 1.
these representations led to an enquiry and mr.
