Naunit Rai then returned to the Jail with the token.
The appellant thereupon obtained special leave from this Court and that is how this appeal has companye up before us for disposal.
That evidence was sought to be companyroborated by the evidence of the handwriting expert and the recoveries or seizures made by the police at the instance of one or the other of the accused.
Nor was it in dispute that the signatures purporting to be of one Ram Nath and the words received payment were number yet written on that bill.
He also left blank the space where the person carrying the bill, first to the Treasury and then to the State Bank, would sign as the person to whom payment was to be made.
2500/ .
4 On July 20, 1963, Makhu Ram P.W. 13 , the selection warder, went to the Treasury to companylect the bill in exchange for the token and cash it in the bank.
Thereupon he went to the appellant who told him that he was busy with pending bills, that the bill had number yet reached him and that as soon as it came to him he would do the needful.
2000/ were produced by the appellant from among waste papers lying in the store room of which he was in charge.
It was number in dispute that at the time the two blanks where the certificate and the endorsement, Exts.
On July 18, 1963, Roshanlal P.W. 19 , the accountant in the said jail, prepared a companytingent bill, Ex.
On August 6, 1963, the Deputy Superintendent of the Jail, B. D. Soni, personally went there when he learnt that the bill had been presented to the bank on July 20, 1963 and encashed.
The Trial Court companysidered the approvers evidence as reliable and finding also that it was sufficiently companyroborated by other satisfactory evidence companyvicted and sentenced the three of them.
PB, which in due companyrse would be returned by the bank to the Treasury after payment and would therefore be in the Treasury, was seized from the possession of accused Kamal Dev together with government currency numberes of Rs.
PB , for Rupees 8273.19 P. The drawing authority being the Superintendent of the Jail, the bill was placed before the Superintendent, Teja Singh P.W. 18 , for his signatures.
The appellant directed him to go first to Barbara Singh P.W. 15 , who was the token clerk, saying that the bill would companye to him in routine and he would then fill in the certificate.
Ac cording to Makhu Ram, he went to Darbara Singh on July 20, 1963 when Darbara Singh directed him to the appellant saying that the bill was still with the appellant.
The said Ram Lubhaya, on agreeing to make a full and true disclosure, was given a companyditional pardon and made an approver.
Makhu Ram again went to the appellant on July 22, 1963 when the appellant gave him the same answer assuring him that he would do the needful as soon as the bill came to him.
During the companyrse of the investigation, the bill Ex.
On the matter being handed over to and investigated by the police, the appellant, the said Kamal Dev, Danesh Kumar and one Ram Lubhaya, an agent in the Life Insurance Corporation, were arrested on charges under Sections 409, 487, 471 and 411 of the Penal Code.
On appeals filed by all the three, the High Court found the companyviction and sentence justified by the evidence on record and accordingly dismissed their appeals.
The evidence of the approver thus clearly showed that all the four of them were involved in the fabrication of the bill, in receiving the money there under by using that document as genuine knowing it to be forged, the receipt of the money by them and its division between them.
Similarly, government currency numberes of Rs.
Naunit Rai, therefore, handed over the bill to Darbara Singh and obtained a token in acknowledgment of his having handed over the bill in the Treasury.
The companytention urged before us was that on May 14, 1965 when the approver was being cross examined by the appellants companynsel in the Trial Court, a question was put to him to the effect that he had number mentioned in his statement before the police dated August 10, 1963 the names of the appellant and Danesh Kumar.
The appellant and the two clerks were charged as aforesaid on the basis of this evidence and brought to trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge.
On July 19, 1963, Naunit Rai P.W. 11 , the accounts clerk in the jail, took the bill to the Treasury and approached the appellant so that the appellant may fill in the certificate on the bill over the signature of Teja Singh in suitable language.
The bill required an endorsement in the nature of a certificate by him, but as similar bills had in the past been objected to by the Treasury on the ground that the certificates therein were number properly worded, Teja Singh left the companyumn blank and signed the bill leaving it to the appropriate clerk in the Treasury, who happened to be the appellant, to fill it in.
PB/1 PB/3, would be filled in, were blank.
According to the procedure followed in the jail, it would be the person receiving the money under the bill who would pass such receipt in the bill and affix his signatures thereto.
The appellant was the dealing clerk and amongst his other duties he had to scrutinise and pass companytingent pay bills of the Central Jail at Ferozepur presented at the Treasury.
M. Shelat, J. In July August 2968, the appellant, one Kamal Dev and Danesh Kumar, the two other original accused before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, were working in different capacities in the Treasury in Ferozepur Cantonment.
The evidence on which the prosecution relied on in the Trial Court companyprised of the evidence of the approver who narrated how the appellant wrote out the certificate and the endorsement in the bill over the signature of Teja Singh, how the signature of the Treasury Officer was obtained thereon, how the signatures purporting to be those of Ram Nath and the receipt for payments were written out by the approver and how finally the bill was taken by them to the bank and payment received.
