D.K.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) THE two appellants, namely, Y.K. Gupta and Mohd. Hanif were convicted under Sections 420 and 471 IPC while appellant ; Y.K. Gupta was also convicted under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act by means of judgment dated 25-6-95 delivered by Sri Raj Veer Singh, the then VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 8/1988. Both the appellants were sentenced to one year's RI each under Section 420 IPC and two year's RI each under Section 471 IPC. Fine of Rs. 5000 each was also imposed on the two appellants under Section 471 IPC. Appellant Y.K. Gupta was further sentenced to two year's RI and a fine of Rs. 5000 under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. All the sentence were directed to run concurrently. In case of default of payment of fine, appellant Y.K. Gupta was directed to undergo RI for one year and appellant Mohd. Hanif was directed to undergo RI for six months.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved from the said order of conviction and sentences, the appellants preferred two criminal appeals separately which are being disposed of by this common judgment. The case of prosecution, as it transpires from the record of the case, is set briefly as follows : -
(3.) APPELLANT Mohammad Hanif is the sole Proprietor of M/s. Bright Hand Loom and Power Loom Works, Walipur Daulal, District Meerut while appellant Y.K. Gupta was employed as Asstt. Manager Technical in U.P. Financial Corporation at its regional office at Meerut. Appellant Mohd. Hanif applied for loan of Rs. 1.20 lac which was sanctioned by the U.P. Financial Corporation on 6-11-1980. Out of the said sanctioned amount of loan, a sum of Rs. 74,712 was disbursed to appellant Mohd. Hanif by the Meerut Regional Office of the U.P. Financial Corporation. On the basis of some complaint an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department. After the investigation, the charge-sheet were submitted against the two appellants. The gravamen of the charges against the two appellants is that there was a criminal conspiracy between the two appellants and in pursuance of the said conspiracy appellant Y.K. Gupta who was at the relevant time, posted as Asstt. Manager Technical submitted incomplete, incorrect, ambiguous and misleading reports regarding the generating set PANA (wrapping machine) and electric motors purchased by the appellant Mohd. Haneef which were old, and on the basis of the said reports a sum of Rs. 74, 712 was disbursed as loan to appellant Mohd. Haneef.;