He was acquitted of a charge under Section 165A Indian Penal Code.
Two such letters came into the hands of P.W. 5, P.W. 5 wanted that action should be taken against the accused.
This Mauji Lal was number examined as a witness.
He first went to the Superintendent of Police and, on his instructions, went to P.W. 9 the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The accused left the place stating that he wanted to arrange for the money.
He denied that he ever prepared false muster rolls or that he misappropriated Government money.
On the next day P.W. 5 produced Exhibits P. 17 and P. 18 before P.W. 9.
The accused gave the money to P.W. 5 and asked for return of the letters and the application.
He denied that Exhibits P. 17 and P. 18 were in his handwriting.
The companyviction and sentence under Section 214 Indian Penal Code were companyfirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
He stated that he had made certain companyplaints against Dalip Yadav and Brindavan, and, therefore, the case was foisted against him at their instance.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows Dalip Yadav, P.W. 5, learnt that the accused who was an Overseer in charge of Feeder Channel of Extension and Improvement, Mohangarh Tank Project, was misappropriating Government money by preparing false muster rolls.
A meeting was held on the morning of 31st October, 1966.
Thakurdas has number been examined as a witness by the prosecution and numberexplanation has been offered for the same.
500/ from P.W. 5.
He gave a signal on seeing which P.W. 9 came to the room.
P.W. 6 stated that the accused himself paid the sum of Rupees 500/ to P.W. 5.
He told the accused that the two letters P. 17 and P. 18 were in his village and that he would give them to him afterwards.
P.W. 7, was examined to prove Exhibits P. 17 and P. 18, the two letters said to have been written by the accused companyveying his instructions to P.W. 7 regarding the manner in which the false muster rolls were to be prepared.
P.W. 4 and Ram Ratan, P.W. 6 were also present.
Therefore, he sent a petition, Exhibit 20 to the Collector.
He got a petition Exhibit 16 prepared by P.W. 6 addressed to the Superintendent of Police.
Accordingly, P.W. 5 went ahead followed by P.W. 9.
These are the several companyflicting versions about how the money passed from the accused to P.W. 5k From the evidence of the various prosecution witnesses, it is clear that Thakurdas played a very prominent part in bringing about the alleged settlement and the payment.
Sita Ram P.W. 1, and Brindavan P.W. 4 sitting there, waiting for him.
He companytacted P.W. 5 and wanted him to desist from taking further action in the matter.
Thakurdas with whom P.W. 5 used to generally stay whenever he went to Mohangarh, was present Sita Ram, P.W. 1, Bindraban.
When he entered the drawing room of Ram Krishan Mishras house, he found the accused, Thakurdas, Ram Rattan P.W. 6.
P.W. 5 handed over Exhibit P. 2 to the accused.
The accused, somehow, came to know about the petition sent by P.W. 5 to the Collector.
He recovered Rs.
He seized Exhibits P. 2 and P. 4 from the accused.
He was tried by the learned Special Judge, Tikamgarh for offences under Section 165A Indian Penal Code and Section 214 Indian Penal Code.
He also signed Exhibit P. 4, a companypromise letter.
Dalip Yadab who was number really interested in obtaining any money for himself, decided to report the matter to the Police.
It was settled that Dalip Yadav should be paid a sum of Rs.
P.W. 9 introduced himself as Deputy Superintendent of Police.
think the accused would have accepted such a document from P.W. 5.
He denied that he offered or paid a bribe to P.W. 5.
He also got prepared another application Exhibit P. 2 addressed to the Collector.
He then arrested the accused.
P.W. 5 took the money from the table.
After companypleting the investigation, P.W. 9 laid a charge sheet against the accused for offences under Section 214 Indian Penal Code, Section 165 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The accused used to send instructions to the Mistry P.W. 7 regarding the manner in which the false muster rolls were to be prepared.
In support of the prosecution case, the principal witness examined was P.W. 5.
P.W. 5 was instructed to give a signal on seeing which P.W. 9 would also enter the house of Ram Kishan Mishra.
P.W. 9 prepared a Panchnama, Exhibit P. 1, referring to Exhibit P. 2 and then returned P. 2 to P.W. 5 with instructions to go to Mishras house a little ahead of him and to receive the money from the accused.
As might be seen from the brief narration of the prosecution case, the essence of the case against the accused was that accused had misappropriated Government money by preparing false muster rolls, that P.W. 5 had companye into possession of incriminating letters, Exhibits P. 17 and P. 18 written by the accused and had threatened to take further action against the accused and that with a view to prevent P.W. 5 from taking further action, the accused gave him bribe of the Rs.
500/ by the accused and that Dalip Yadav should hand over the two letters and a written companypromise to the accused.
There were some preliminary negotiations and the matter was to be finally settled in the house of one Ham Kishan Misra, a Vakit of the place.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. The sole appellant in this appeal by Special leave was companyvicted by the learned Special Judge, Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh under Section 214 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
We do number.
The defence of the accused was one of denial.
