409.66p.
Similarly the evidence of Paras Ram Pandey shows that he had paid to the appellant a sum of Rs.
300.41 p. on behalf of his brother, Sri Ram Pandey.
An important aspect of the evidence of these witnesses is that the admission by them that they owed a particular sum of money to the Government was against their self interest.
On 26th March 1961 he is alleged to have received a sum of Rs.
29 and 50, from out of that book to Raghubir Singh and Sri Ram Pandey.
Habibul Rahman, who was an Assistant Wasil Baqi Navis, has stated in his evidence that the receipt was in the handwriting of the appellant and that the words rupees two hundred in Hindi were also in the handwriting of the appellant.
499.66 p. The defence of the appellant was that the two persons had only paid 0.25 p. and 0.50 p. respectively and that he was falsely implicated in the charge as the Tehsildar was hostile to him Having seen the relevant evidence through which learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us, we are of the opinion that the High Court was justified in companyfirming the companyviction and sentence of the appellant.
This is fully supported by the facts mentioned by the learned Magistrate in his Order.
One of his duties was to receive the amounts payable to the Government.
The High Court of Allahabad companyfirmed the judgment of the trial Court and being aggrieved thereby the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
Ka 5 on the basis of that receipt.
A receipt which was given by the appellant to Raghubir Singh is on the record of the case at Ex.
A witness called Roshan Singh says that Raghubir Singh had paid the sum of Rs.
The appellant says in his statement Under Section 342 of the CrPC that the Tehsildar was inimical to him but of that there is numberevidence whatsoever.
300.41 p. from one Sri Ram Pandey through his brother, Paras Ram Pandey.
These witnesses have hardly been cross examined and number even a suggestion has been made to them that they had any reason for implicating the appellant falsely.
particular receipt was tampered with by the appellant during the pendency of the companymittal proceedings.
Instead of crediting these amounts in the Treasury, he credited 0.25 p. and 0.50 p. only, misappropriating the balance, viz.
2000/ to the Government towards a Taqavi loan and that he had paid Rs.
It was companymon ground that a receipt book was issued by the Shahabad Tehsil to the appellant and that he issued two receipts, Nos.
200/ to the appellant on 26 March 1961, in part payment of that amount.
The appellant, Shariful Islam, was working as a Collection Aminin Tehsil Shahabad from March 1961 to July 1961.
The evidence of Ram Chander Gangwar, who was a NaibTehsildar at the relevant time shows that he had checked the receipt given by the appellant to Paras Ram Pandey and that he had prepared the companypon Ex.
200/ from one Raghubir Singh and a sum of Rs.
Raghubir Singh has stated in his evidence that he owed a sum of Rs.
This witness has number been cross examined on the question of the identification of the appellants handwriting.
200/ to the appellant in his presence.
The charge against the appellant is that he had companymitted breach of trust in regard to a sum of Rs.
V. Chandrachud, J. The appellant was companyvicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rampur Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.
