Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- In July-August 1963, the appellant, one Kamal Dev and Danesh Kumar, the two other original accused before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, were working in different capacities in the Treasury in Ferozepur Cantonment. The appellant was the dealing clerk and amongst his other duties he had to scrutinise and pass contingent pay bills of the Central Jail at Ferozepur presented at the Treasury.

2. On July 18, 1963, Roshanlal (P. W. 19), the accountant in the said jail, prepared a contingent bill, (Ex. PB), for Rupees 8273.19 P. The drawing authority being the Superintendent of the Jail, the bill was placed before the Superintendent, Teja Singh (P. W. 18), for his signatures. The bill required an endorsement in the nature of a certificate by him, but as similar bills had in the past been objected to by the Treasury on the ground that the certificates therein were not properly worded, Teja Singh left the column blank and signed the bill leaving it to the appropriate clerk in the Treasury, who happened to be the appellant, to fill it in. he also left blank the space where the person carrying the bill, first to the Treasury and then to the State Bank, would sign as the person to whom payment was to be made. On July 19, 1963, Naunit Rai (P. W. 11), the accounts clerk in the jail, took the bill to the Treasury and approached the appellant so that the appellant may fill in the certificate on the bill over the signature of Teja Singh in suitable language. The appellant directed him to go first to Darbara Singh (P. W. 15), who was the token clerk, saying that the bill would come to him in routine and he would then fill in the certificate. Naunit Rai, therefore, handed over the bill to Darbara Singh and obtained a token in acknowledgment of his having handed over the bill in the Treasury. Naunit Rai then returned to the Jail with the token.

3. It was not in dispute that at the time the two blanks where the certificate and the endorsement, Exts. PB/1 & PB/3, would be filled in, were blank. Nor was it in dispute that the signatures purporting to be of one Ram Nath and the words "received payment" were not yet written on the bill. According to the procedure followed in the jail, it would be the person receiving the money under the bill who would pass such receipt in the bill and affix his signature thereto.

4. On July 20, 1963, Makhu Ram (P. W. 13), the selection warder, went to the Treasury to collect the bill in exchange for the token and cash it in the bank. He was told that the bill could not be traced and that efforts were being made to find it. The Jail authorities sent Makhu Ram on several successive days but on each day he was told in the Treasury that the bill had not yet been found. On August 6, 1963, the Deputy Superintendent of the Jail, B. D. Soni, personally went there when he learnt that the bill had been presented to the bank of July 20, 1963 and encashed.

5. On the matter being handed over to and investigated by the police, the appellant, the said Kamal Dev, Danesh Kumar and one Ram Lubhaya, an agent in the Life Insurance Corporation, were arrested on charges under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 411 of the Penal Code. The said Ram Lubhaya, on agreeing to make a full and true disclosure, was given a conditional pardon and made an approver. During the course of the investigation, the bill Ex. PB, which in due course would be returned by the bank of the Treasury after payment and would therefore be in the Treasury, was seized from the possession of accused Kamal Dev together with government currency notes of Rs. 2500/-. Similarly, government currency notes of Rs. 2000/- were produced by the appellant from among waste papers lying in the store room of which he was in charge. The appellant and the two clerks were charged as aforesaid on the basis of this evidence and brought to trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge.

6. The evidence on which the prosecution relied on in the Trial Court comprised of