Skip to content


Ram Pyaralal Shrivastava Vs. State of Bihar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 324 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1980SC1523; (1980)1SCC492; 1979(11)LC508(SC)
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 477A; Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 5(2)
AppellantRam Pyaralal Shrivastava
RespondentState of Bihar
Excerpt:
.....dismissed. on appeal to the high court by the aggrieved parties, the high court decided all the appeals in favour of the state. in appeal to the supreme court, the appellants contended that the amounts collected by the respondent state, were in the nature of an unlawful tax imposed by the executive. the respondent sought to support the judgment of the high court, contending that, (i) the appellants were agents of the government and liable to account for the profits; (ii) the appellants, if not agents, stood in a fiduciary capacity to the government with the obligation to account; (iii) the government was authorised to issue the direction to pay the surcharges,to it; (iv) in those cases where the amounts were realised by re- quisitioning and release, the appellants could not recover..........shiv-pujan singh appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that there was no legal evidence to prove that the handwriting on ex. 4/1, 4/3 and 4/5, the disputed blank paper ticket and the signatures which have been proved to be those of the appellant, are of the appellant and thus if this is established, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. it appears, however, that the writing of the appellant has been proved on these documents not only by the experts but also by some other witnesses who were fully acquainted with the writing of the appellant. we have ourselves examined the signatures of the appellant on ex. 4/1, 4/3 and 4/5 with the admitted signatures on exh. 3, 3/1 and 3/2 and we find that there is large measure of similarity and clear resemblance in almost all the.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a fine of Rs. 160/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months and has also been convicted under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for one year. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr., Shiv-Pujan Singh appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that there was no legal evidence to prove that the handwriting on Ex. 4/1, 4/3 and 4/5, the disputed blank paper ticket and the signatures which have been proved to be those of the appellant, are of the appellant and thus if this is established, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. It appears, however, that the writing of the appellant has been proved on these documents not only by the experts but also by some other witnesses who were fully acquainted with the writing of the appellant. We have ourselves examined the signatures of the appellant on Ex. 4/1, 4/3 and 4/5 with the admitted signatures on Exh. 3, 3/1 and 3/2 and we find that there is large measure of similarity and clear resemblance in almost all the characteristics in the two writings. In this view of the matter we are not in a position to accept the submission of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //