A.N.Dikshita - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by Rewa Chand Khattar against his conviction under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the Act) and the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and his conviction under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court as recorded by Sri B. N. Misra, Special Judge, Anti Corruption (Central) U. P., Lucknow, vide his judgment and order dated 6-11-78.
(2.) IN brief the relevant facts are : The appellant was working as a Grade II Officer in the State Bank of INdia, Main Branch, at Kanpur, at the relevant time in 1975. Under the rules he was entitled to leave fare concession, namely, travel expenses for himself and the members of his family. On 16-4-1975 he applied for leave and the sanction for availing of such concession for going to Bombay was granted to him. He took an advance of Rs. 1500/- on 13-5-75 for the purpose. On 16-7-75 the appellant submitted a bill showing his departure from Kanpur on 19-5-75 and return journey on 29-5-75 alongwith Money Receipt issued by the Railways claiming Rs. 1060.25 as 1st Class Railway fare. He gave out in the bill tickets nos.14560 to 14564 and child ticket no. 01579 for going to Bombay and ticket nos.02432 to 02436 and child ticket no. 00309 for the return journey from Bombay to Kanpur. The amount of Rs. 1060.25 was sanctioned and the appellant received the same. The case of the prosecution was that neither the appellant nor the members of his family undertook the journeys as aforesaid and the appellant by adopting corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his position as a public servant submitted a false bill and charged the amount of Rs. 1060.25 as fare. It was alleged by the prosecution that the Money Receipt submitted by the appellant was a forged document and the tickets of which numbers were given by the appellant were in fact sold to other persons both at Kanpur and at Bombay. After the necessary sanction dated 15-12-1976 accorded by the General Manager (Operations) exercising the powers of the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, the prosecution was launched against the appellant.
(3.) IN support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses. The appellant pleaded not guilty and denied commission of the offences with which he was charged. He asserted that he and his family members had undertaken the journeys from Kanpur to Bombay and from Bombay to Kanpur and that he had not submitted a wrong or false bill.;