Lila Dhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - Court Judgment
|Court||Himachal Pradesh High Court|
|Case Number||Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1956|
|Judge|| T. Ramabhadran, J.C.|
|Acts||Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(2); ;Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Section 403|
|Respondent||State of Himachal Pradesh|
|Appellant Advocate|| Kedar Ishwar, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate|| D.N. Vaidya, Govt. Adv.|
.....had failed to prove its case. in the result, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of rs. 400/-; in default, four months' rigorous imprisonment. hence, this appeal.
2. arguments in the appeal were heard yesterday. for reasons to be stated shortly, i am of the opinion that the appellant was rightly convicted, although, in the matter of fine, i feel that some leniency might be shown to the appellant.
3. the prosecution case was that the appellant, in his capacity as booking-clerk at mandi, received, on or after 26-4-1956, the sums, in question, from the drivers of various transport vehicles for deposit with the adda cashier. the appellant, however, failed to deposit the sums. it was only several days after he was placed under.....order22. the result is: while i maintain the conviction of the appellant of an offence under section5(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1947, ireduce the fine from rs. 400/- to rs. 100/-, indefault one month's rigorous imprisonment. fine,in excess of rs. 100/-, if realised from the appellant, must be refunded to him without delay. thesentence of imprisonment till the rising of thecourt is, however, maintained. subject to this modification, the appeal is rejected.
22. The result is: while I maintain the conviction of the appellant of an offence under Section5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Ireduce the fine from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 100/-, indefault one month's rigorous imprisonment. Fine,in excess of Rs. 100/-, if realised from the appellant, must be refunded to him without delay. Thesentence of imprisonment till the rising of theCourt is, however, maintained. Subject to this modification, the appeal is rejected.