Appellant as also the companyaccused aggrieved by their companyviction and sentence preferred separate appeals.
This muster roll companytained the names of Devki Nand, Gursa Ram, Lok Pal and Joginder Singh as casual labourers recorded by Hazari Nand and verified by the appellant.
A telegram alleging malpractices against both of them were received on 26th September, 1984 in the Anti Corruption Unit at Shimla.
In the said muster roll, the names of Kanshi Ram and Ram Bahadur were recorded by PW 2 Dula Ram, the then Supervisor and it was companyntersigned by the appellant.
Appellant, pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
PW 14, D.R. Gupta has stated in his evidence that the muster roll basically is a document which is maintained by the Junior Engineer in which the names of the persons engaged and working are shown and on that basis the payment is made to the labourers engaged.
On the basis of the said entry, wages were paid to the aforesaid persons.
While granting sanction, the State Government observed that the appellant entered into criminal companyspiracy with the companyaccused and prepared false muster roll number 146 in which names of casual labourers, who were number engaged, inserted.
The defence of the appellant is denial simplicitor and he termed the incriminating evidence against him as false when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sanction for prosecution of the appellant alongwith company accused was granted for offence punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 511 and 120 B of the IPC as also for offence under Section 5 2 of the P.C. Act.
5/84 was lodged.
However, from the evidence of PW 1, Shri Chander Singh, PW 2 Shri Dula Ram and PW 14 Shri D.R. Gupta, Meter Reader, Supervisor and Executive Engineer respectively, it is evident that the muster roll was verified by the appellant herein.
According to the prosecution on investigation it transpired that the aforesaid labourers did number work for the period for which they were marked present in the muster roll.
On 29th of August, 1984, companyaccused smeared the word blank with red ink and handed over to PW 2 Dula Ram to enter the names of two labourers and to mark them present for the month of July, 1984.
PW 3/A respectively were verified and companyntersigned by the appellant.
The muster roll has been exhibited which bears the signature of the appellant.
Both of them i.e. Appellant Kuldeep Sharma, Junior Engineer and Co accused Rajinder Sharma were sent up for trial and they were charged for companymission of the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120 B of the IPC and Section 5 2 of the P.C. Act.
This order will govern the case of the appellant only.
Appellant was number a casual daily wager and companyld number have been removed by the companyaccused.
230 Ext.
Investigation revealed that muster roll number 146 Ext.
PW1/A and Ext.
Further case of the prosecution is that Muster Roll No.
PW 3/A for the period 1st September, 1984 to 30th September, 1984 pertaining to the repairs and maintenance of water supply scheme was issued by the then Executive Engineer PW 14 D.R. Gupta to the companyaccused who in turn endorsed it to the appellant herein.
PW 1/A for the period 1st of July, 1984 to 31st of July, 1984 which pertained to the running and maintenance of flow irrigation scheme was earlier given to PW 1 Chander Singh, Meter Reader, who returned with the endorsement blank on it to the companyaccused.
However, lateron, company accused struck off the first endorsement and endorsed it to Hazari Nand PW 8 , the then Supervisor.
The witnesses have further stated that muster roll number 146 and 230 Ext.
PRASAD, J. Appellant, aggrieved by his companyviction and sentence under Sections 120 B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the IPC and Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 hereinafter called as P.C. Act is before us with leave of the Court.
Payments to the aforesaid labourers were made by the Assistant Engineer who succeeded the companyaccused.
In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has altogether examined 15 witnesses besides a large number of documents were exhibited.
A preliminary investigation was companyducted and on that basis, First Information Report No.
On appraisal of the evidence, the Trial Court companyvicted the appellant and the companyaccused for offence under Sections 120 B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC and Section 5 2 of the P.C. Act and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed both the appeals with some reduction in sentence.
