Judgement

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J:- This is an appeal by special leave against the judgement of the Rajasthan High Court. The accused was initially charged on three counts, firstly, under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), secondly, under section 409, I.P.C., and thirdly, under section 477A, I.P.C. Thereafter on 15-1-1964 another Special Judge charged him on two counts, namely, under section 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (c) and S. 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act. After the trial, the appellant was, however, convicted under section 409, I.P.C. and section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (c) and (d) of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 18 months and a fine of Rs. 250/- under Sec. 409, I.P.C. and 18 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- under section 5 (2) read with sections 5 (1) (c) and 5 (1) (d) of the Act. The sentences on both these counts were directed to run concurrently. The High Court, however, thought that the Special Judge had not recorded any conviction under section 5 (1) (d) of the Act and in that view confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant and 18 month s rigorous imprisonment on each of the counts, namely, under section 409, I.P.C. and section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (c) of the Act, but reduced the fine for each of the offences from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 150/-.

2. The appellant was employed as a Traffic Assistant in the Indian Airlines Corporation s office at Jaipur and his duty was to make reservations of the passengers intending to go by air and issue tickets. As it happens, when the quota of seats allotted to Jaipur is full, intending travellers who request for accommodation would be required to pay trunk telephone charges for enabling the Airlines Corporation to obtain release of seats from quotas allotted to other centres. The practice of the Airlines was to collect the approximate charges and issue a receipt therefor and if a seat was available, the reservation would be confirmed and accommodation given to the passengers if seats could be released from other centres for Jaipur. The appellant who was incharge of these arrangements between 16-2-62 and 30-8-62, collected Rs. 184.90 towards trunk telephone charges but actually deposited with Airlines Corporation a sum of Rs. 44.91 and misappropriated the balance of Rs. 139.99. The modus operandi followed by him, it is alleged, was that he would demand a higher amount for Trunk Call charges than were likely to be incurred and he would issue a correct receipt for those amounts on behalf of the Airlines Corporation but after making the trunk call, he would alter the counter-foil with the actual amount of trunk call charges. On the same day he would make a daily return showing the actual amounts and deposit them with the Cashier. A typical sample of the receipts given by him on behalf of the Airlines Corporation is Exhibit 40 which is as follows:

"INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION

NEW DELHI.

No.-354577 Station: Jaipur.

Date: 30-8-62.

Received with thanks from M/s. M/Travels, Jaipur sum of Rupees Twentythree and forty np. being the amount T/Call charges to Udaipur and AMD for release of seat.

For INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION

Sd/-

Rs. 23.40 Cashier".

3. On 31-8-62, one M. D. Singh of the Mercury Travel Agency, Jaipur complained to B. S. Gupta, Incharge of the Office of the Indian Airlines Corporation at Jaipur that the appellant had collected Rs. 23.40 for proposed trunk call charges from the Agency but made no call and no seat was allotted to the passenger of the Mercury Travel Agency even though one was available and that seat was given by B. S. Gupta to someone else. B. S. Gupta questioned the appellant who then made a confession of his having collected the amount but not having made a call. After making this confession he immediately resigned his job. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Area Manager who thereafter lodged the First Info