Both the Courts, upon which the duty rested of investigating and deciding questions of fact, had thoroughly discussed the evidence in the case and had companye to the companyclusion that the reason given by each accused for the cash memos was false.
31.89 which had number been purchased at all, and, on the strength of these cash memos, Keshwani had prepared a false medical reimbursement bill and realised this amount from the Government.
P. 4, dated 17 6 1962, so that the medicines shown on the cash memo of that date as bought were number actually sold at all.
He said I cannot say whether these medicines were or were number in stock of M s. Govind Medical but I did purchase them and paid for them.
In fact, Keshwani admitted that he had obtained the payment for the medicines from the Government.
The natural inference was that the accused Keshwani had used false and fictitious cash memos to obtain payment of bills for reimbursement of money spent on medicines.
The Special Judge as well as the High Court had companycurrently found that numbermedicines were actually purchased from Vishnu Kumar by Keshwani, but the amount, falsely shown as paid, had been realised by the appellant Keshwani from the Government.
He had asserted that the cash memos were genuine and that they were given on payment of the prices of the medicines prescribed and actually purchased and taken.
His version, however, was that they were prepared at the instance of Keshwani, who was in the habit of taking such cash memos every month on the pretext that he would, otherwise, have to give his whole salary to his father who would number allow him to deduct some pocket money for himself and his wife without such cash memos.
Nevertheless, the position of the stocks as disclosed by the registers and account books kept by the Accountant of the Medical Store, companyld be and was duly proved by this witness.
But, Vishnu Kumar, the proprietor of the Medical Store, admitted that the cash memos were really fictitious.
The High Court of Rajasthan had, on appeal, affirmed the companyvictions and sentences.
It is true that Manoharlal, P.W. 3, stated that he worked as an Accountant from June or July, 1962 to May, 1963, and, after admitting that he was working in the shop on 17 6 1962, seems to have stated at one place, under cross examination, that he began to work in the shop of Vishnu Kumar with effect from 17 7 1962.
Keshwani also stated that he took these medicines and showed them to the Doctor who had prescribed them.
The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
The appellant Keshwani also, by his assertion, that he had shown the medicines to the Doctor who prescribed them, put the very relevant fact in issue whether the medicines were or were number actually shown to the Doctor before Keshwani used them.
The prosecution case against the appellant was that Keshwani, an employee of the N.C.C. Directorate at Jaipur, and Vishnu Kumar, Proprietor of a Medical Store, had companyspired to Fabricate three cash memos dated 22 5 1962, 17.6.1962 and 11 7 1962 for medicines for an amount totalling upto Rs.
He also proved that he had actually cancelled the carbon companyy of the cash memo Ex.
