On appeal the Sessions judge set aside the Conviction under s. 465, but maintained the companyviction and sentence of Pyarelal Bhargava under s. 379, and Ram Kumar Ram under s. 379, read with s. 109, of the Indian Penal Code.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 25, 1953 of the Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No.
PC and another application Ex.
On April 8, 1948, Ram Kumar Ram filed a declaration to that effect.
After replacing the said documents, Ram Kumar Ram made an application to the Chief Engineer on December 24, 1948, that the licence should number be issued in the name of the companypany.
Thereafter, he entered into partnership with 4 others with an understanding that the licence would be transferred to a companypany that would be floated by the said partnership.
237 of 1956.
On the advice given by the Government Advocate, the Government required Ram Kumar Ram to file a declaration attested by a Magistrate with regard to the transfer of his rights and the licence to the companypany.
The case of the prosecution is that Ram Kumar Ram was a friend of the appellant.
Indian Penal Code, and the latter for an offence under ss.
PB, from the Government of tile former Alwar State to supply electricity at Rajgarh, Khertal and Kherli.
Pyarelal Bhargava, who was a Superintendent in the Chief Engineers Office, Alwar.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate companyvicted both the accused under the said sections and sentenced them on both the companynts.
P. W. 15/B is that application.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Revision No.
October 22.
P. W. 15/B from the file and substituting in their place another letter Ex.
After the discovery of the tampering of the said documents, Pyarelal and Ram Kumar were prosecuted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alwar the former for an offence under s. 379 and s. 465, read with s. 109, of the.
To appreciate the questions raised in this appeal the following facts, either admitted or found by the High Court, may be stated.
On November 24, 1945, one Ram Kumar Ram obtained permission, Ex.
K. Kapur and P. D. Menon, for the respondent.
2 of 1962.
At the instance of Ram Kumar Ram, Pyarelal Bhargava got the file Ex.
P. Varma, for the appellant.
200/ .
PA 1 from the Secretariat through Bishan Swarup, a clerk, before December 16, 1948, took the file to his house sometime between December 15 and 16,1948, made it available to Ram Kumar Ram for removing the affidavit filed by him on April 9, 1948, and the application, Ex.
Against these companyvictions both the accused filed revisions to the High Court and the High Court set aside the companyviction and sentence of Ram Kumar Ram but companyfirmed those of Pyarelal Bhargava.
Pyarelal Bhargava has preferred the present appeal.
After the companypany was formed, it put in an application to the Government through its managing agents for the issue of a licence in its favour.
