A statement recorded under S.313, Cr.P.C. cannot be used against a co-accused as the co-accused has no opportunity to cross-examine the person making the statement.

The appellant was employed as an accountant in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Chamba in May/June 1973. One Anant Ram s/o Sukhdyal (now deceased) was employed as a peon in the health department in civil dispensary, Killar, District Chamba. The prosecution version is that Anant Ram wanted an advance of Rs. 10,000/- for carriage of medicines from Chamba to Killar and an advance of Rs. 7,000/- was sanctioned. The appellant was to pay Rs. 7000/- to Anant Ram on 26-5-1973, but according to Anant Ram he was paid only Rs. 5000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 2000/- was retained by the appellant. Anant Ram took medicines from Chamha. He again visited Chamba on 15-6-1973 and gave receipts worth Rs. 4514.23 to the appellant. On the asking of the appellant, he destroyed the receipts and the appellant prepared fresh forged receipts valued at Rs. 8730/- with the result that a bill for withdrawing an amount of Rs. 8730/- was prepared. The appellant had initialled all these receipts on 15-6-1973 and had given the same to Rajinder Singh (PW3) a clerk in C.M.Os office at Chamba to pass the voucher. The bills were prepared by Rajinder Singh on the asking of the appellant and all the documents including the vouchers were handed over by him to the appellant. The appellant left Chamba for Simla at about 3 p.m. but before leaving Chamba, he, after checking and initialling the bills, sent the same to the C.M.O. Chamba for sanction. Anant Ram again appeared on 18-6-1973 before the C.M.O. Chamba and applied for an advance of Rs. 1175/- for carriage of medicines. He gave a statement to the C.M.O. Chamba in the presence of Rajinder Singh, Mohan Lal and Sudarshan Kumar about all the facts. After the return of the appellant from Simla, the C.M.O. asked him to give his explanation regarding Rs. 2000/- which had allegedly been retained by him and also regarding preparing of the forged receipts. The appellant maintained that he had disbursed Rs. 7000/- to Anant Ram and the receipts were prepared by him on the asking of Anant Ram, because Anant Ram had informed him that the original receipts were lost. The C.M.O. Chamba becoming suspicious, reported the matter to the police and a case was registered against the appellant and Anant Ram.

2. The appellant was charged and tried for having committed offences under S.5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter the Act) and under Ss.468, 467, 471 and 409, I.P.C. Co-accused Anant Ram was also charged under S.5(1)(c) of the Act and Ss.467, 468, 471 and 409, I.P.C. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and they were tried for the same. The Special Judge Kangra at Dharamsala, held that Anant Ram was guilty of having committed offences under S.5(1)(c) punishable under S.5(2) of the Act and under Ss.467,471 and 409, I.P.C. and he was accordingly convicted.

3. The appellant was also found guilty of having committed offences under S.5(1)(d) punishable under S.5(2) of the Act and under S.468, I.P.C. and for abetting Anant Ram under Ss.409 and 471, I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under S.5(2) of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under S.468, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- under S.471, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under S.409, I.P.C. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. Feeling aggrieved from this judgment of the learned Special Judge, the appellant has filed this present appeal.

5. I have heard Shri M.G. Chitkara, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant had paid the amount of Rs. 7000/- to Anant Ram now deceased) and the statement of Anant Ram cannot be used against the appellant. He also contends that the stateme