Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM, J. : On behalf of the sixth-accused, the appellant herein, in this appeal, by special leave, Mr. B. P Singh, learned counsel, challenges the order of the Patna High Court, dated September 6, 1965, setting aside the order of acquittal, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, and convicting him for an offence, under Section 467, read with Section 109, I. P. C., and passing a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. For the relief and rehabilitation, of people who had suffered, in 1954, by the heavy floods in Sitamarhi Sub-Division, the Government of Bihar was granting loans to needy and suitable persons, under the Agriculturist s Loan Act, 1884. The appellant was a Mukhtear, practising at Sitamarhi. There were certain formalities, to be gone through, in the matter of obtaining the loans, under that Act. One of the requirements was that an applicant had to put his signature, on an agreement from and, that he should be identified, by a lawyer, who should also attest his signature. Several officers, connected with this Loan Department, including the Mukhtears practising at Sitamarhi, one of whom was the appellant, were alleged to have entered into a conspiracy, between November, 19, 1955 and December 22, 1955, to cheat the Government, by inducing it to grant loans, in the names of two fictitious persons, and, in pursuance of that conspiracy, two applications, for loans in the names of two fictitious persons, Durga Singh and Hari Shankar Singh, were filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi. According to the prosecution, the appellant and another Mukhtear, Devendra Prasad, had certified, in the loan applications of Durga Singh and Hari Shankar Singh, that they knew those parties and that they had signed, in their presence. The amounts were drawn in the usunl course, from the treasury, by the said two persons; and, ultimately, it came to light that the two persons were fictitious persons, got up by the sevaral accused. Ths appellant admitted having attested in the loan applfcations of the two individuals concernod but he stated that he did so, on the assurancc of one Sheojee Prasad Karpardaj. It may be stated that this Sheojee Prasad Karpardaj was also charge-sheeted, but he has been discharged, even by the committal Court.

3. The learned Sessions Judge found on the evidence, that Durga Singh and Hari Shankar Singh were fictitious person and a fraud was committed, on the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi, and the Sub-treasury, as a result of which the Government sustained a loss of Rs. 1,000. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the appellant s plea that he had made the endorsement on the assurance of Sheojee Prasad Karpardaj and, in view of the fact that another Mukhtear, Devendra Prasad had also attested the loan applications, and (sic) acquitted him. This Devendra Prasad had also been charged, for the same offence. While admitting, having attested the signatures of the applicants for the loan, Devendra Prasad had set up a plea that he did so, on the assurance, given by one Rudradeo Singh. This explanation has been accepted, by the trial Court and Devendra Prasad was acquitted. But, when the State appeal, against acquittal, was pending in the High Court Devendra Prasad died. But, we have to refer to certain observations, made by the High Court, regarding this Devendra Prasad which have, more or less, formed the grounds, for setting aside the order of acquittal of the appellant also. The High Court on appeal, by the State Government, has set aside the order of acquittal of the appellant. Two reasons, so far as we could see, have been given, by the High Court, for interfering with the order of acquittal, viz., (i) that though the appellant raised a defence that he attested the loan applications, on the representation and assurance of Sheojee Prasad Karpardaj, no evidence has been let in, by the appellant, to support this defence; and (ii) Devendra Prasad, with whose case th