- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. This is an appeal preferred by appellant Jameel Ahmad against his conviction under Section 420/468 IPC and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and consequent sentences of two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 under the first count and three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00/- under the last count.
(2.) THE brief resume of the facts of the prosecution case is as under: Jameel Ahmad was employed as a driver in the U. P. State Electricity Board, Basti Sub-Division, in 1975- 76. He drew payment against 31 cash memos of M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar situated in Mohalla Pandey Bazar, Basti. He also withdrew payment against 7 cash memos of Pandey Automobiles, Gandhi Nagar, Basti. THE payment against these 38 cash memos drawn by the appellant was for Rs. 2,682/ -. THE payment was drawn from the Department by him on fictitious vouchers. THEre were some complaints made from some quarter that the firm M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar was not engaged in the sale/purchase of petrol, diesel, mobil or distilled water since long. THE 7 cash memos belonging to Pandey Automobiles were also not issued from there. THE matter was enquired into and it was found that the accused was alone the author of all these cash memos. He withdrew money against these cash memos from the Department for his personal gain. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. THE prosecution in support of its case examined PW 1 Chandra Prakash Pandey, a clerk in the Sales Tax Office. He proved that the firm M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar was closed during the period for which the cash memos were produced. PW 2 Kanhaiya Lal is son of Mahadev Prasad, a partner of the firm M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shanker. He also proved this fact and the fact that these cash memos were not signed either by him or his father. PW 3 Suresh Pratap Singh is an Executive Engineer in the Electricity Board, PW 4 Maqbool Ahmad Siddiqui is a retired Assistant Revenue Collector. He has also proved that the firm was not in existence. PW 5 Rajendra Singh Yadav, PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra, PW 7 Mahendra Pratap Singh and PW 9 Dr. Kanti Kumar are all document experts. THEy have proved that the disputed cash memos were prepared by Jameel Ahmad on comparison with the admitted writings of his, PW 8 Ram Asre Singh is a clerk in the Power Transmission Division. He proved that the appellant was an employee of the Department and was running jeep of the Executive Engineer. PW 10 Ram Swaroop is Noter and Drafter, Power Distribution Division, Basti. He had also come for the said purpose, PW 11 Ram Sewak Pandey is owner of Pandey Automobiles. He proved that the cash memos, allegedly belonging to his firm, were not signed by any of his staff or he himself, PW 12 Abdul Basir Khan is the Investigating Officer in the case. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him. His defence was that to save their own skin he was made an escape goat by his officers. He never bought petrol himself. Petrol was taken by the Engineer. On his direction he used to station the jeep at the paid petrol pump, M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar. Petrol was taken from there. He only used to sign on back of the cash memos. He was driver of Jeep No. UPC-5088. He also denied that he had presented any of these cash memos for payment. He was implicated falsely. He did not adduce any evidence. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence on record from which it would be proved that the appellant had swindled the money by submitting fake cash memos. The hand writing experts opinions are not final. As many as four handwriting experts were examined. All of them were police officers. At different stages these officers compared the same handwritings. It was strange that the department was not satisfied with the comparison of one or two and, therefore, the writings were repeatedly sent to different officers. The log book was deliberately withheld from the handwriting experts. That could have easily proved that the petrol for which money was withdrawn was taken by whom. PW 10 had admitted clearly that the jeep was always on run. It cannot run without petrol. The petrol must have been purchased. This is a clinching proof that the money was not embezzled but was used in purchasing petrol for the running of that jeep. None of the officers who signed the verifications and also ordered for the payment of money against these cash memos were produced in evidence purposively. Their withhodling from evidence lands assurance to the defence case that to save senior officers this appellant, a Class IV employee, was used as an escape goat.
(3.) LEARNED A. G. A. argued that the handwriting experts opinion is a conclusive proof of the fact that these memos were prepared by this appellant and the money was paid by the department to him against these cash memos. Therefore, his guilt is established. In order to test the submissions made by both the parties, I have to examine closely the evidence. Ext. Ka-4 pertains to the examination of 13 cash memos. They were numbered as Q-2641 to Q- 2654. On comparison with the admitted writings, S-2655 to S-2695 they were found to be tallying in their pen pressure, curvature, writing features, muscular habit, skill etc. and the opinion finally drawn by the handwriting expert was that these memos were prepared by this appellant. This is a report submitted by PW 5. Ext. Ka-8 is another handwriting expert's report. It pertains to 7 cash memos from Q-3215 to Q- 3222 on comparison with the admitted hand writings. PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra came to the conclusion that they tally with the admitted writings of the appellant. Ext Ka-47 is the expert's opinion given by PW 7 Mahendra Pratap Singh. It pertains to 10 cash memos belonging to firm M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar. He also compared 13 cash memos belonging to Pandey Automobiles with the admitted handwriting of the appellant and finally was of the opinion on the basis of the abovesaid peculiar features that they were prepared by the said appellant.;