The fourth charge was that the appellant had abetted the firms specified in clauses a to k in the companymission of the offence under r 81 2 of the Defence of India Rules.
16 to 21 .
These were offered on behalf of Sher Singh Arora and accepted by the appellant in January, 1946.
After the case was thus transferred to the Add1.
All the sentences thus imposed on the appellant were to run companycurrently.
Vaish who was also tried along with the appellant was similarly companyvicted and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment.
At the initial stage of the trial, the appellant took a preliminary objection that the sanction accorded by the Government of India to the prosecution of appellant under s. 197 Code of Criminal Procedure was invalid.
Thereafter, the Government of India accorded sanction for the prosecution of the appellant under s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the January 31, 1949.
1635 of 1953, S. R. Chari, S. Pichai and S. Venkatakrishnan, for the appellant.
The appellant and Vaish then appealed to the High Court against the said order of companyvictions and sentence.
In support of this case, oral evidence was given by Lala Sheo Karan Das himself, his son Bhola Nath and Parshotam Das, his nephew who is a partner with him.
Broadly stated the prosecution case was that during the period December 1945 to September 20, 1946, the appellant and Vaish and other entered into a criminal companyspiracy to do illegal acts, such as the companymission of offenses under, ss.
Bizwi abs companyded to Pakistan and Rawat died.
From January, 1946, be was appointed to the said post and he held that post until September 20 1946.
The learned Judge directed that since he found numbersubstance in the preliminary companytention raised by the appellant, the record should be sent back to the trial Court without delay so that it may proceed with the trial of the case.
On this latter date, the Central Government suspended the appellant, and on a warrant issued by the District Magistrate, Kanpur, he was arrested on the October 28, 1947.
On April 28, 1947, leave granted to the appellant was gazetted with effect from September 21, 1946 for a period of four months.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 17, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
It is in the light of these facts.
The Government of India also added that the exact period of the leave granted to the appellant would be intimated to the Assam Government later.
abetment in the acquisition and sale of Iron and .steel, in companytravention of the Iron and Steel Control of Distribution Order 1941 and that in pursuance of the said companyspiracy, they did companymit the aforesaid illegal acts from time to time and thus rendred themselves liable to be punished under s.120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
He was subsequently trans ferred to Kanpur as Assistant Iron a Steel Controller in 1945.
As to the prosecution case in respect of the bribes offered by Sher Singh Arora, the High Court was number satisfied with the evidence adduced in respect of the actual offer of money, but it held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the offer and acceptance of certain valuable things was satisfactory.
A subsequent numberification issued by the Central Government extended the leave up to May 13, 1947.
It appears that while the appellant had proceeded on leave the Government of India wrote to the Assam Government on February 8, 1947, intimating that it had desided to replace the services of the appellant at the disposal of the Assam Government on the expiry of the leave granted to him with effect from September, 21, 1946.
That, in brief, is the nature of the prosecution case against the appellant as set out in the several charges.
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and it is with that certificate that he has companye to this Court in appeal.
4,5, 11 b 3 and 12 of the Iron and Steel Order of 1941 and sentenced to two yearsrigorous imprisonments.
In the result, the case instituted on the ,,aid charge sheet proceeded against the appellant and Mr. Vaish.
On the latter date, the appellant proceeded on leave for four months and did number return to service either under the Government of India or under the Assam Government.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
46 of 1958.
In the main, the High Court companysidered the ten instances adduced by the prosecution for showing that the appellant had accepted illegal gratification and had companymitted the other offenses charged, and came to the companyclusion that the prosecution evidence in respect of eight instances companyld number be acted upon, whereas the said evidence in respect of two instances companyld be safely acted upon.
161, 165, 467.
These two instances were deposed to by Lala Sheo Karan Das and other witnesses and by Sher Singh Arora and other witnesses.
Subsequently, he was released on bail.
The charge under s. 120 B was tried by the learned Judge with the aid of assessors, whereas the remaining charges were tried by him with the aid of the jury.
On May 7 1953, the appellant alone with Vaish was tried by the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kanpur.
On August 14, 1952, Vaish filed a list of witnesses before the companymitting Magistrate and requested that one of the prosecution witnesses should be recalled for cross examination.
Then he came to Delhi on similar work in the office of the Master General of Ordnance which was the Steel Priority Authority during the War period.
It appears that thereafter a list of defence witnesses was tiled by the appellant before the Commiting Magistrate on July 24, 1952.
Since the order of companymitment in the present case had also been passed before July 28, 1952, the Special Judge held that the case against the appellant must be tried under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and number under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and so, an order was passed that the trial should be held by the Additional District Sessions Judge at Kanpur.
The first appointment which the appellant held under the government of India was that of the Deputy Director of Metals in the Munitions Production Department at Calcutta.
Indian Penal Code or in the alternative, Offenses such as were prescribed by r. 47 3 read with r. 47 2 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939 and.
A Charge sheet was submitted by the prosecution alleging that the appellant along with three of his former assistants had companymitted various acts of companyspiracy, companyruption and forgery during the period 1, 1.1946 to 20 9 1946 The other persons who were alleged to be company companyspirators with the appellant, were vaish, a clerk in charge of licensing under the appellant, Rizwi and Rawat who were also working as clerks under the appellant.
The period companyered by the charges which were eventually formed against the appellant and, others is from January 1, 1946 to September 20, 1946.
On July 28, 1952, the Criminal Law Amendment Act came into force.
SarjooPrasad, G.C.Mathur and G.P.Lal, for the respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The appellant R.R. Chari was a permanent employee in a gazetted post under the Government of Assam.
March 28.
his plea was accepted by the High Court and so, the High Court examined the evidence for itself.
This order was passed on March 17th, 1958.
In 1941, his services were lent to the Government of India.
This objection was companysidered by Harish Chandra J. of the Allahabad High Court and was rejected on the July, 18th 1949.
Sometime thereafter, he become the Deputy Iron Steel Controller, Kanpur Circle which post he held for one month in September, 1945.
These valuable things were a three piece sofa sot, a centre piece, two stools and a revolving chair Exts.
