Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J.:- In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted by the Special Judge, Tikamgarh under Sections 409, 467 and 477-A Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced under each count to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50 under each count and in default one months rigorous imprisonment under each head. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. It seems to us that this is rather an unfortunate case where a school teacher has been made the victim of unfortunate circumstances of which an undue advantage has been taken by colleagues and others who were by no means friendly to him and who got an opportunity to bolster up a case against the appellant.

3. The appellant was a Principal of a Higher Secondary School, Kakarhati and joined his assignment on 21st November, 1963. He had preceded two other persons who were the Principals of the same school. The main charge against him was that on 6-3-1964 he had drawn a sum of Rs. 993.30 on the contingent bill for various items. One of the items was the salary of a Chowkidar Pancham Dhimar for 10 months at the rate of Rs. 50 p. m., the total amount being Rs. 500. The prosecution alleged that Pancham was never employed in the school and the appellant had merely drawn this amount on a fictitious plea in order to misappropriate it. On or about the same time, on the basis of the same bill it was alleged that two items one of Rs. 20 and the other of Rs. 43 said to have been paid to a Kumaharin and Ramphal respectively had been drawn which also had been misappropriated by him and false entries in the contingent bill made in that regard. These two items however formed the subject-matter of Special Criminal Case No. 2 of 1966. It was tried by the same Special Judge who however rejected the prosecution case and acquitted the appellant of the charge relating to these items.

4. So far as the item relating to Rs. 500 was concerned, the Special Judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant as indicated above. On appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction as also the sentence and hence this appeal by special leave.

5. A detailed narrative of the facts leading to the charges against the appellant has been set out in the judgments of the High Court and that of the Special Judge and it is not necessary for us to repeat further details.

6. The case appears to have been started against the appellant on the basis of a complaint made by P.W. 8 Yagya Narain, a clerk who had actually drawn the amount on the orders of the appellant and who was later on dismissed from service by the appellant for some irregularities. The central evidence against the appellant consists of Ex. P-12 which is a sort of a confession made by the appellant to P.W. 10, Shri B. D. Naik, Assistant Divisional Superintendent, Education on 19-9-1964. P.W. 10 further took the abundant caution of taking a written statement signed by him from the appellant on the same date which is Ex. D-7 in the case. In this statement the appellant seems to have admitted to have falsely drawn Rs. 500 towards the salary of Pancham Chowkidar and subsequently is said to have redeposited this amount in the treasury. The High Court and the Special Judge have relied heavily on this document which really forms the sheet anchor of the prosecution case. Apart from Ex. P-12 the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are:

1. The fact that Pancham Chowkidar was never mentioned as an employee in the attendance register;

2. That oral evidence of some witnesses has been adduced to show that Pancham Chowkidar never worked in the school at all.

3. The evidence of P.W. 8 Yagya Narain that the amount of Rs. 500 was falsely drawn because no payment was made to Pancham Chowkidar. Pancham Chowkidar was also examined as P.W. 9 and he stated that he had not worked in the school but used to sleep in the house of the appellant.

7. We would first take up the