I. respectively.
380/ to the Institute, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the appellant must have had at least numbermal dealers profit.
I. and a fine of Rs.
It is companyceded and the High Court has found, that it has number specifically stated as to what profit the appellant made in the deal.
I.P.C. and Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act sentencing him to one years Rule.
A cheque Exh.
Another quotation was received from another firm Kumar Bros. An order Exh.
He wanted to purchase a Binocular for his department.
Several quotations Exhs.
As another Binocular had been supplied at Rs.
The appellant told P.W. 12 that he had purchased a Binocular for his Institute and he will get the quotations for Sahariya also.
He had a talk with the appellant about the Binocular.
P. 8 was issued in favour of Surender Brothers and the amount was received by one J. Singh who is the partner of Surendra Brothers.
P 2, P 3 and P 4 were received on March 28, from the Surender Brothers.
The appellant is the Principal of Basic Institute, Raisen.
Sahariya, P.W. 12, was Divisional Forest Officer, Raisen.
S. Kailasam, J. This appeal is by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.
The case of the prosecution is that the appellant cheated Sahariya by making a representation that Surendra Brothers was a firm dealing with Binoculars and that the price quoted was the proper one as he had himself purchased for the institute.
332 of 1971 companyvicting the appellant under Section 420.
200/ and six months Rule.
