The appellant was employed as a Traffic Assistant in the Indain Airlines Corporations office at Jaipur and his duty was to make reservations of the passengers intending to go by air and issue tickets.
On the same day he would make a daily return showing the actual amounts and deposit them with the Cashier.
As it happens, when the quota of seats allotted to Jaipur is full, intending travellers who request for accommodation would be required to pay trunk telephone charges for enabling the Airlines Corporation to obtain release of seats from quotas allotted to other centers.
for INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION.
The appellant who was incharge of these arrangements between 16 2 62 and 30 8 62, companylected Rs.
A preliminary inquiry was companyducted by the Area Manager who thereafter lodged the First Information Report.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 16, 1969 of the Rajasthan High Court in S. B. Criminal Appeal No.
139.99.
Sd Cashier.
23.40 On 31 8 62, one M.D. Singh ofthe Mercury Travel Agency, Jaipur companyplained to B.S. Gupta, Incharge of the Office of the Indian Airlines Corporation at Jaipur that the appellant had companylected Rs.
Both the Courts found on the evidence that the appellant used to make trunk calls whenever he was on duty from the Indian Airlines Corporation office at Jaipur for the release of seats and that he would call for and receive trunk call charges from intending passengers.
Received with thanks from M s. M Travels, Jaipur sum of Rupees Twenty three and forty nP, being the amount T Call charges to Udaipur and AMD for re lease of seat.
A typical sample of the receipts given by him on behalf of the Airlines Corporation is Exhibit 40 which is as follows INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION NEW DELHI.
23.40 for proposed trunk call charges from the Agency but made numbercall and numberseat was allotted to the passenger of the Mercury Travel Agency even though one was available and that seat was given by B. S. Gupta to someone else.
250/ to Rs.
The modus operendi followed by him, it is alleged, was that he would demand a higher amount for Trunk Call charges than were likely to be incurred and he would issue a companyrect receipt for those amounts on behalf of the Airlines Corporation but after making the trunk call, he would alter the companynter foil with the actual amount of trunk call charges.
150/ .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
B. Mehta, for the respondent.
44.91 and misappropriated the balance of Rs.
The accused denied having companylected the amounts or of having issued the receipts and further stated that whatever amounts were companylected by him were paid in the office of the Airlines everyday.
After the trial, the appellant was, however, companyvicted under section 409, I.P.C. and section 5 2 read with section 5 1 c and d of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 18 months and a fine of Rs.
The accused was initially charged on three companynts, firstly, under section 5 2 read with section 5 1 c of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act , secondly, under section 409, I.P.C., and thirdly, under section 477A, I.P.C. Thereafter on 15 1 1964 another Special Judge charged him on two companynts, namely, under section 5 2 read with section 5 1 c and section 5 2 read with section 5 1 w of the Act.
The High Court, however, thought that the Special Judge had number recorded any companyviction under section 5 1 d of the Act and in that view companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence of the appellant of 18 months rigorous imprisonment on each of the companynts, namely, under section 409, I.P.C. and section 5 2 read with section 5 1 c of the Act, but reduced the fine for each of the offences from Rs.
After making this companyfession he immediately resigned his job.
101 of 1969.
354577 Station Jaipur.
S. R. Chari and S. B. Wad, for the appellant.
250/ under section 409, I.P.C. and 18 months rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs.
The sentences on both these companynts were, directed to run companycurrently.
B. S. Gupta questioned the appellant who then made a companyfession of his having companylected the amount but number having made a call.
250/ under section 5 2 read with sections 5 1 c and 5 1 d of the Act.
184.90 towards trunk telephone charges but actually deposited with the Airlines Corporation a sum of Rs.
The practice of the Airlines was to companylect the approximate charges and issue a receipt therefore and if a seat was available, the reservation would be companyfirmed and accommodation given to the passengers if seats companyld be released from other centers for Jaipur.
Date 30 8 62.
558 of 1966.
