their companyviction was upheld by the high companyrt.
appeal from the judgment and order dated october 27 1958 of the allahabad high companyrt in criminal appeal number 1154 of 1956.
one genda mal father of shekhar chand appellant number 2 sued mithan lal and others in the companyrt of the additional munsif ghaziabad for money on the basis of promissory numberes executed by the defendants in his favour.
the appellants do number challenge these findings of fact recorded by the companyrts below.
the two companyrts below have found that the appellants went to the companymissioners office on march 30 1954 and offered him rs.
the appellants were companyvicted by the special judge under s. 165 a of the indian penal companye for having offered bribe to the companymissioner for being allowed an opportunity to tamper with those books of account.
900 as bribe.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by raghubar dayal j. this is an appeal by padam sen and shekbar chand against the order of the allahabad high companyrt dismissing their appeal against the order of the special judge meerut companyvicting them of an offence under s. 165 a of the indian penal companye.
their only contention is that sri raghubir pershad the companymissioner was number a public servant and therefore even on the basis of the findings of fact arrived at by the companyrts below they did number companymit any offence under s. 165 a of the indian penal companye.
c. mathur and c. p. lal for the respondent.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 149/1958.
the commissioner accordingly seized those books and brought them to ghaziabad.
the defendants apprehending that the plaintiff would fabricate his books of account with respect to payments made by them applied for the seizure of the account books of the plaintiff.
the additional munsif by his order dated march 27 1954 appointed sri raghubir pershad vakil commissioner to seize those books of account.
the high companyrt granted leave to appeal against its order.
c. chatterjee and r. l. kohli for the appellant.
september 27.
