The court held that the prosecution had proved the existence of a criminal conspiracy between the four accused and that they had committed forgery and taken illegal gratification. The court also found that the evidence against the accused was corroborated by the documents seized from their possession.

1. - The two appeals listed above arise out of one and the same judgment of conviction and sentence, and can therefore be quite conveniently disposed of together. By his judgment and order dated, April 22, 1982, the learned Special Judge Jaipur convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows :Brij Mohan and Narain Lal Nirala

(i) Rigorous imprisonment for one year, and a fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default, further simple imprisonment for two months each under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code;

(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, or in default, further simple imprisonment for four months each, under Section 161 Indian Penal Code;

(iii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or, in default further simple imprisonment for four months each under Section 468 Indian Penal Code;

(iv) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or, in default, further simple imprisonment for four months each, under Section 5(2), read with Section 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Govind Lal

(i) Rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of. Rs. 500/-, or, in default, further simple imprisonment for two months under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code;

(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, or in default, further simple imprisonment for four months under Section 468 Indian Penal Code.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The fourth accused, namely, Satish Chandra, was convicted under Sections 120B and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead of passing an order of sentence immediately in his case, the trial judge found it just and proper to release him on probation of good conduct for three years.

2. As already stated, Brij Mohan, Narain Lal Nirala and Govind Lal have appealed against their conviction and sentence as mentioned above. Satish Chandra seems to be satisfied with his release on probation of good conduct. He has not preferred any appeal against the order of conviction passed against him.

3. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the three appellants as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. Narain Lal Nirala and Brij Mohan were posted as Vaid and Up-vaid, respectively in the Government Ayuro-vedic Aushdhalaya, Galta Road, Jaipur at the material time in 1973. Khem Chand Tojwani, Additional Superintendent of Police in the Anti-Corruption Department of the State Government received information that corruption was rampant in the said Aushdhalaya. The information was that Brij Mohan was in the habit of preparing bogus medical bills for Government servants on payment of 35 per cent of the amount of the bills by way of illegal gratification. Govind Lal, the proprietor of M/s Navin Ayuro-vedic Stores, Bhindo-ka-rasta Chandpole Bazar Jaipur and his servant, Satish Chandra were also parties to this criminal conspiracy. The modus operandi for the commission of these crimes, as agreed to between the conspirators, was that Brij Mohan would prepare a false out-door patient ticket in the name of Government servant in a back data, and arrange to get bogus cash memos relative to that ticket, prepared by Govindlal and Satish Chandra of the Navin Ayuro-vedic Store. Narain Lal Nirala was also a party to this criminal conspiracy inasmuch as he used to verify such cash memos and issue the requisite essentiality certificate to enable the Government servant concerned, i.e. the so-called patient, to realise payment of the amount of bogus cash memos from the Government. The amount of illegal gratification realised by Brij Mohan used to be divided by Brij Mohan, Narain Lal Nirala, Govindlal and Satish Chandra between them.3A. On receipt of this information, Khem Chand Tejwani, the Additional S.P. in the Anti-Corruption Department, decided to lay a trap to catch the culprits and thus put an end to this racket. He passed an order, Ex.P/1, dated June 5,1973, directing constable Jagdish Singh, one of his