( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 225-D of 1962 and 226-D of 1962. The appeals are directed against the judgment of special Judge, Delhi, dated December 19. 1962. By the said judgment the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced appellant Bharel to-

(1) One year s rigorous imporisonment and a fine of Ks. 100. 00 or in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment of one month under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, read with section 5 (2) and (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ; (2) Rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 100. 00 or in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment of one month under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ; (3) One year s rigorous imprisonment under section 477-A, Indian Penal Code; and (4) Rigorous imprisonment of one year under section 471/467, Indian Penal Code. And appellant Bhatia to- (1) One year s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. 00 or in default of payment of fine to rigirous imprisonment of one month under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, read with section 5 (1) (e) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; (2) One year s rigirous imprisonment under section 477-A, Indian Penal Code; and (3) One year s rigorous imprisonment under section 467, Indian Penal Code. The sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently in both the cases.

( 2 ) S. C. Bharel appellant was employed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Northern Electrical Division, C. P. W. D. , New Delhi, during the months of January and February 1960 and H. C. R, Bhatia appellant was working under him as Section Officer. Bhatia appellant prepared a report Exhibit P. 12 asking for sanction for engaging additional labour called muster roll employees from 1-1-1960 to 31-1-1960 for working at Primary Health Centre, Najafgarh. The sanction sought was for four employees consisting of one Diesel Engine Driver, two Fitters and one Wireman for operating the pumping Plant at the said Primary Health Centre, Najafgrah. The said report was written by Bhatia and signed by Bharel. Bharel forwarded it to K. S. Khera, Executive Engineer, who granted the sanction. One of the Diesel Engine Drivets was Prabhu Dayal, who left on 20th January, 1960. According to the prosecution, no substitute was employed in place of Prabhu Dayal for the period 21-1-1960 to 31-1-1960. Both the appellants are alleged to have entered int a conspiracy to misappropriate Rs. 44. 00 by falsely showing the name of Tarlok Nath (P. W. D.) as having been employed in place of Prabhu Dayal for the said period of Tl days from 21-l-1960 to 31-1 I960. The prosecution further alleges that the method adopted by the appellants for misappopriating the said amount was that though no one was employed in place of Prabhu Dayal, name of Tarlok Nath (P. W. 1) was shown in the muster roll as the person who worked for the period of said I I days as Diesal Engine Driver. Bhatia forged the signature of Tarlok Nath (P. W. 1) on the said muster roll Exhibit P. i 3 acknowledging or the receipt of Rs. 44. 00 though the amount was never paid to Tarlok Nath. Bharel is alleged to have signed the said muster roll certifying payments to all muster roll employees, including Tarlok Nath. Defence of appellant Bhatia was that Tarlok Nath had in fact been employed from 21 1-1960 to 31-1-1960 and his name had been correctly shown in the muster roll Exhibit. 13. He further pleaded that on 2-2-1960, the date when money was distributed to the muster roll employees for the relevant period, he was not present at the time of distribution and the money was actually paid to lhe employees by Bharel appellant. He denied having forged the signatures of Tailok Nath in the muster roll Exhibit P. 13. The defence of Bharel appellant, on the other hand. was that on 2-2-1960 he had to distribute money at five different Section 0 facers. So far as this centre was concerned he paid