SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(SC) 124

P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N.WANCHOO, K.C.DAS GUPTA
Munnalal – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
C.P.LAL, FRANK ANTHONY, G.C.MATHUR, P.C.AGRAWAL

Judgment

WANCHOO, J.: These are three appeals by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. It will be convenient to dispose them of together, though they arise out of three different trials before the Special Judge, Saharanpur. under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 2 of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as the appellant is the same in all the appeals.

2. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. Munnalal was the cashier of the Municipal Board of Hardwar and had been working as such since 1932. He was in-charge of the cash and it was his duty to see that whenever the funds in his possession exceeded Rs. 4,000/- they were deposited in the treasury or the Imperial Bank at Roorkee. In 1949 there was an audit of the accounts of the Board and on May 24, 1949, the auditor found that the money received by the Board from April 20, 1949 to May 23, 1949 totalling Rs. 52,144/- had not been deposited in the treasury or the Imperial Bank at Roorkee. The matter was then reported to the Chairman of the Board, who called Munnalal and took his explanation as to the allegal embezzlement. It is said that the appellant admitted that he had














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top