The case is that the partnership paid altogether a sum of Rs.
The High Court however rejected the States application for enhancement of the sentence.
It is said that Ram Das at first refused.
In order to allay suspicion some fictitious credit entries were also made in the books.
The prosecution also tried to prove the guilt of the accused by showing that the pecuniary resources and property that were in the ap pellants possession or in the possession of his wife, Dava Kaur, and his son, Bhupinder Singh, on his behalf we are disproportionate to the appellants known sources of income.
20,000/ was paid by Udhe Singh to Bhupinder Singh.
But, ultimately when the appellant started unnecessary criticism of the work done by them and even withholding some running payments the partners of the firm decided to pay companymission to him as demanded.
The prosecution also alleged payment to the appellant of Rs.
His explanation as to how he got this money is that Rs.
As regards the other amount of Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 20, 1960 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
20,000/in fixed deposit with the Bank of Patiala the defence case as sought to be proved by Bhupinder Singh was that these were received by him from his grand father Chanda Singh.
20,200/ was received by him from Udhe Singh in December 1945 and Rs.
The present appeal is by Sajjan Singh against his companyviction and sentence under s. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by special leave of this Court.
20,200/ was Sajjan Singhs money.
241/12/ made up of small sums paid on different occasions on behalf of the accused.
2,000/ to him for payment to the Executive Engineer and Rs.
When asked why he made the payments to Bhupinder Singh, son of Sajjan Singh instead of to Chanda Singh or to Chanda Sings son Surjan Singh, Udhe Singh replied that he did so because my account was with Sardar Sajjan Singh.
Udhe Singh it has to be remembered is a close relation of Sajjan Singh, Sajjan Singhs father Chanda Singh being Udhe Singhs mothers brother.
On all these findings he found the appellant guilty of the charge for criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties and companyvicted and sentenced him as, stated above.
The prosecution case is that after work had been done by the firm Ramdas Chhankandas for several months, and some running payments had been received without difficulty, the appellant demanded from Ram Das, one of the partners of the firm, his companymission on the cheques issued to the partenrship firm.
The companyviction and sentence were companyfirmed by the Punjab High Court, on appeal.
To prove its case against the appellant the prosecution relied on the testimony of three partners of the firm who claimed to have made payments and on various entries in the several books of account of the firm.
In the opinion of Mr. Justice Harbans Singh these companyld number be taken into companysideration .
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
26,000/ was deposited by Bhupinder Singh in his account long before 1949 when he joined military service.
20,200/ to Bhupinder Singh in payment of what he owed to Bhupinder Singhs grandfather Chanda Singh and to his father Sajjan Singh.
Taking into companysideration the assets acquired by the appellant after January 1948 the learned judges held that these came to just above Rs.
On December 7, 1952, the General Manager, Bhakra Dam, made a companyplaint in writing to the Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, alleging that Sajjan Singh and some other officials subordinate to him had by illegal and companyrupt means and by abusing their position as public servants, dishonestly and fraudulently, obtained illegal gratification from the companytractors Ramdas Chhankanda Ram and M s. Ram Das Jagdish Ram by withholding their payments and putting various obstacles in the smooth execution of the work entrusted to them.
All these payments made to the appellant were fully entered in the regular Rokar and Khata Bhais of the partnership under a fictitious name of Jhalu Singh, Jamadar, though a few of the later payments were entered in these books in Sajjan Singhs own name.
6,000/ was given to him by his grand father Chanda Singh.
M. Lall and B. N. Kirpal, for the appellant.
He companytinued as Overseer till July 1944 when he became a Sub divisional Officer in the Department.
K. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
From the date till May 1947 he worked as Sub Divisional Officer in that part of Punjab which has number gone to West Pakistan.
98 of 1960.
For, according to Udhe Singh this payment was made by him to Bbupinder Singh on behalf of his father.
1,800/ by another firm M s. Ram Das Jagdish Ram.
10,500/ in cash as companymission to the appellant, besides paying Rs.
It has to be numbericed that even if this story of payment was believed that would number improve the appellants case.
Udhe Singh has given evidence in support of the first part of the story and has said that he paid Rs.
6000/ which formed part of the deposits in the Punjab National Bank and a further sum of Rs.
The first payment, it is said, was made on March 21, 1949 and further payments were thereafter made from time to time.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA J. Sajjan Singh, son of Chanda Singh, joined the service of the Punjab Government in January 1922 as an Overseer in the Irrigation Department.
The work of excavation for the Nangal Project within the Drauli Sub Division was carried out by several companytractors, including Ramdas Chhankanda Ram and M s. Ramdas Jagdish Ram.
683 of 1957.
August 28, 1963.
From November 30, 1947 to September 26, 1962 he was employed as Sub Divisional Officer of Drauli Sub Division of the Nangal Circle, except for a short break from November 8, 1950 to April 3, 1951, when he was on leave.
