(1.) THE appellant, Bhagirath Lal, was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') and Section 409/467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court in its judgment dated 22.7.1991 acquitted him of the offence under Section 5(2) of the Act, but after having found him guilty under Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him as under :- Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(2.) BOTH the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(3.) THE facts of the case are as under :- Bhagirath Lal appellant was working as the Secretary of the Market Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi. In the year 1976-77, the Market Committee gave a contract worth Rs. Three lacs to several contractors for the supply of storage bins for wheat, which were to be supplied to farmers on a subsidy of 75%. The specification for the bins provided that they were to be made of 24 gauge iron sheeting. It is the case of the prosecution that bins of 8 quintals instead of 10 quintals capacity and of 26 gauge sheets instead of 24 gauge were prepared which were thus sub-standard. It is further the prosecution's case that these bins had been accepted by the appellant after receiving a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as illegal gratification. When this information was received by the Market Committee, an FIR was lodged. Inspector Raja Singh investigated the case and got the bins checked from one Tarsem Singh, Quality Promotion Officer, who found that they were of inferior quality and of lower capacity. It was also found that Bhagirath Lal had received Rs. 68,000/- as illegal gratification from Ravinderpal Singh contractor so as to clear the aforesaid bins. It was further found on a perusal of the record, which too was seized by the Investigating Officer, that the bins had been allegedly supplied to several persons, who had in fact not received and to others who were not entitled thereto and that forgery had been committed in the record to show that the delivery had been made.