IMPORTANT POINTThe Supreme Court is empowered to interfere even with the concurrent findings of the fact when both the courts below instead of dealing with the intrinsic merits of the evidence of the witnesses, have acted perversely by summarily disposing of the case, pretermitting the manifest errors & glaring infirmities appearing in the cases.

JUDGMENT

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:— These two criminal appeals are preferred by the appellants, namely - Narendra Pratap Narain Singh and Puran Singh who were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial Court, against the judgments dated 8-5-1979 rendered in Criminal Appeals Nos. 158 and 157 of 1977 on the file of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow arising out of Sessions trials Nos. A-2 1 0 and 228 of 1974 whereby the High Court by a common judgment and order set aside the convictions and sentence under Ss. 467 and 471, I. P. C. but, however, upheld their conviction under S. 409, I.P.C. and reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine from Rs. 500 to Rs. 250 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in each of the cases.

2. The material facts as unfolded from the records can be stated thus:

There was a Block Development Office in the district of Sultanpur known as Dhanpatganj Block to which a seed store known as Semrauna seed store was attached. The seed store was to cater to the needs and requirements of the cultivators for seeds and fertilisers etc. During 1964-65, the first appellant was in charge of that seed store. On 2-9-65, he was relieved by the second appellant on transfer from Kurebhar.

3. According to the prosecution, the first appellant in his official capacity was entrusted with fertilisers, pesticides, seeds etc. which were meant to cater the needs of the cultivators within Semrauna area. In 1965, there were several village level workers. It is said that on 29-7-65, the first appellant prepared forged bills in the names of some village level workers (hereinafter referred to as VLWS) bearing bills Nos. 57, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 64 of book No. 7767 as if the VLWs were supplied with articles of Agricultural Department on credit, the total amount. of which being Rs. 1591.04 and thereby committed breach of trust, punishable under Section 409, I.P.C. The indictment against the second appellant is that he being a public servant of the said Agriculture Department committed breach of trust of the articles mentioned in Bills Nos. 1 1, 17 and 18 of book No. 7767 and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 450.26. Apart from the above charges levelled against each of them, they were individually and collectively charged for offences punishable under Ss. 467 and 471, I. P. C.

4. The defence of the first appellant was that all those bills were not fictitious and bogus but were genuine and that the materials were supplied to the VLWs as reflected in the concerned bills. He denied the charge of defalcation and also making bogus entries in the records. He further stated that on transfer, he relieved the second appellant at Kurebhar but was holding dual charge of both Surauna and Kurebhar simultaneously till the second appellant took charge of Sumrauna area and that he used to supply fertilisers, seeds etc. to the village workers on credit on the basis of the long established practice and under the orders of the superiors. The defence of the second appellant was that he received the part payment relating to bill No. 1 1 and deposited the said amount in Government treasury and that he had not misappropriated any amount. The trial Court, repelling their defence, convicted both the appellants under all the charges and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment with the direction that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. In addition to the sentence of imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 500/ - was imposed for the conviction under S. 409, I.P.C.

5. As the High Court has now set aside the conviction of the appellants under Ss. 467 and 471, I.P.C. and as the State has not preferred any appeal as against that acquittal, we are not called upon to deal with the case relating to those two charges. Hence, this appeal is confined only with regard to the legality of the conviction of these two appellants under S. 409, I.P.C.

6. The learned Judge of the High Court has d