JUDGMENT P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. The appellant K. Achuthan was the Station Master at the Tikkoti Railway Station, Southern railway from the year 1961 to 1963. He was prosecuted by the Special Police Establishment, Madras for offences under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under section 420 I.P.C. A person is guilty of criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The case of the prosecution was that the accused in his capacity as the Station Master having authority to collect freights and issuing receipts misused his position and collected more money than what was really due and by entering lesser amounts, in the station records obtained pecuniary advantage for himself. Learned Sessions Judge of Trichur found the appellant guilty of the offences under section 5 (2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The calendar shows that the accused was convicted under section 420 I.P.C also and that no separate 560 sentence was awarded. This is clearly a mistake as no Union of India charge was framed under section 420 and the judgment also does not show that the learned Judge has convicted the accused under section 420 I.P.C 2. The facts that led up to the prosecution may be briefly stated : At a place called Katalur near the Tikkoti Railway Station, there is a private Industrial estate called Sree Shaila Industrial Estate. One of the units of that Industrial estate was Prabhu's French Polish. They used to receive various articles by rail at Thikkoti Railway Station. Certain goods arrived at the railway station under railway receipts Exts. P-2 P-2(a) and P-2(b). On 19th August 1961 they were delivered to the representative of the Prabhu's French Polish on payment of Rs. 275.55p. It is the prosecution case that the receipt for payment Ext. P-4 was given by the accused who received the amount. In the books of the station only a sum of Rs. 255.5p. was entered. P-2 P-2(a) and P-2(b). On 19th August 1961 they were delivered to the representative of the Prabhu's French Polish on payment of Rs. 275.55p. It is the prosecution case that the receipt for payment Ext. P-4 was given by the accused who received the amount. In the books of the station only a sum of Rs. 255.5p. was entered. Similarly, another consignment covered by railway receipts Exts.P-5 and P-5(a) were delivered by the accused to the representative of the Prabhu's French Polish on 30th October 1961 on payment of Rs. 176.10p., and the receipt Ext.P-6 was given by the accused but only an amount of Rs.156.10p. was credited in the station records. The third item covered by railway receipt Ext. P7 was delivered by the accused to the representative of Prabhu's French Polish on 27th November 1961 on payment of Rs. 81.05p. under receipt Ext. P-8. The accused however credited only Rs. 71.05p. in the records of the railway station. 3. In 1963 P.W.8 the Vigilance Inspector in the office of the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras visited the Tikkoti Railway Station on receipt of certain complaints when P.W. 2, Director of the Sree Shaila Industries produced a bunch of receipts and their account books before P.W. 8. Exts. P-4, P-6 and P-8 were three among the receipts produced by P.W. 2. P.W. 8 checked the delivery book, the cash book and the general receipt books Exts. P-12 and P-13 and found discrepancies between the receipts given to the party and the amount credited in the accounts of the railway station and he questioned the accused about it. The accused then gave a statement Ext. P-15 admitting therein that Exts. P-4 and P-6 were issued by him. P.W. 8 made a report Ext. P-16 and thereupon a complaint Ext. P-17 was made to the Superintendent of Police, Special Establishment, Madras. P.W. 11 the Inspector applied for sanction to investigate the case and on permission being granted he questioned witnesses and after obtaining the opinion from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents that Exts. P-4, P-6 and P-8 were in the handwriting of the accused, he was put up for trial. 4. When questioned on the prosecution evidence, the accused stated that he cannot definitely say whether it was he who made the deliveries in the three cases and that he cannot say as to who had written the receipts. P-4, P-6 and P-8 were in the handwriting of the accused, he was put up for trial. 4. When questioned on the prosecution evidence, the accused stated that he cannot definitely say whether it was he who made the deliveries in the three cases and that he cannot say as to who had written the receipts. He admitted that the explanation Ext. P-15 was written by him, but according to him it was at the instance of and at the dictation of P.W. 8. He added that during his tenure of office in a few instances he might have collected excess amounts due to wrong calculation of demurrage etc., but such excess amounts have been duly refunded to the company through their coolies. He examined D.Ww. 1 to 5 on his side. 5. The question that arises for decision is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the receipts Exts. P-4, P-6 and P-8 were written up and issued by the accused and that it was he who had collected the amount shown in those receipts. I will take up each of the items separately. The first consignment covered by Exts. P-2, P-2 (a) and P-2 (b) were received at the railway station on 13th July 1961. Ext. P-9 is the Foreign Goods Delivery Register. The respective entries are Exts. P-9 (g), P-9 (h) and P-9 (j) respectively. From the same register it will be seen that these consignments were delivered on 19th August 1961. Exts. P-9 (b), P-9 (c) and P-9 (d) are the relevant entries and P.W. 4 has signed the register token of having received the goods. The total amount due for the consignment comes to only Rs. 225.55 and that amount has been entered in Ext. P-11 the goods cash book and the relevant entries are Exts. P-11 (a), P-11 (b) and P-11(c). These amounts tally with the amount shown in the three railway receipts. The delivery details are worked out in the R.Rs. In Ext. P-2 the freight and demurrage charges comes to Rs. 101.45 p. In Ext. P-2 (a) it is Rs. 101.45p. In Ext. P-2 (b) it is Rs. 52.65 p. The total amount was only Rs. 255 55. Ext. P- 12 (a) is the record foil of the general receipt note pertaining to these three R.Rs. In Ext. In Ext. P-2 the freight and demurrage charges comes to Rs. 101.45 p. In Ext. P-2 (a) it is Rs. 101.45p. In Ext. P-2 (b) it is Rs. 52.65 p. The total amount was only Rs. 255 55. Ext. P- 12 (a) is the record foil of the general receipt note pertaining to these three R.Rs. In Ext. P-12 (a) also the amount collected for the delivery of the consignments covered by Ext. P-2 series is shown as Rs. 255.55 p. The serial numbers are noted at the top of Ext. P-12 (a). 6. P.W. 4 is the cooly in P.W. 2's firm who has signed Ext. P-9. His signature is contained in Exts. P-9 (b), P-9 (c) and P-9 (d). He no doubt does not identify the accused as the station master then in charge to whom he had paid the money, but there is nothing surprising in this as he was examined in the case long after the date of the delivery and he could not possibly have remembered the particular person to whom money was paid. He has, however, identified his signature in Ext. P-9 and has stated that the consignment was taken delivery of by him after paying the station master in charge the amount demanded by him and the receipt obtained by him was handed over at the office. That Ext. P-4 was handed over is clear because P.W. 2 produced Ext. P-4 before P.W. 8. The books of the company shows that Rs. 275.55 p. was actually paid. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the books. In Ext. P-4 the figure Rs. 275.55 is written [in pencil. It is not in carbon impression and such a writing does not appear in Ext. P-12 (a) the counterfoil of the receipt. In the body of Ext. P-4 also what is written in words is two hundred and seventy five There can, therefore, be no doubt that what was collected from the Union of India consignee was Rs . 275.55 p. But only an amount of Rs. 255.55p. is entered in the records of the railway station. Whoever has collected the amount and credited a lesser amount in the railway records would be clearly guilty of the offence (vide the decision in Ram Krishan v. State of Delhi). A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 476. 7. The further question is whether the receipt Ext. 255.55p. is entered in the records of the railway station. Whoever has collected the amount and credited a lesser amount in the railway records would be clearly guilty of the offence (vide the decision in Ram Krishan v. State of Delhi). A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 476. 7. The further question is whether the receipt Ext. P-4 was issued by the accused. P.W. 9 the Assistant Station Master at Tikkoti has sworn that Ext.P-4, and the relevant entries in the station records Exts P-9, P-11 and P-12 and the delivery details in ink in Ext. P-2 series are all in the handwriting of the accused. It may be that the witness has worked there only for three months with the accused but it cannot be said that he would not, during that period, have been acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the accused. He is a person who had ample opportunities of seeing the accused writing and getting acquainted with his handwriting P.W. 9 bears no enmity with the accused and nothing has been suggested as to why he should go out of his way in giving false evidence implicating the accused. It is also significant that when the accused was shown these receipts and questioned he did not categorically say that it was not in his handwriting. He only says that he does not know, a stand that cannot be easily understood. He also is not bold enough to say that he was not in charge of the station on that day. The evidence of P.W. 9 is corroborated by the opinion of P.W-10 the Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Simla. He has deposed that Ext. P-4 was written by the person who wrote the standard writings, and the standard writings have been properly proved by P.W. 9. Reasons have been given by the export for his opinion and I do not find any good grounds to doubt his evidence. 8. P.W. 8 the Vigilance Inspector who went to the Union of India railway station in connection with the enquiry and before whom the receipts were produced by P.W- 2 has stated that when he noticed the discrepancies between the receipts and the station records he questioned the accused and the accused gave a voluntary statement Ext. P-15. The accused admits therein that Ext. P-4 and Ext. P-6 receipts were issued by him. P-15. The accused admits therein that Ext. P-4 and Ext. P-6 receipts were issued by him. When questioned in court he admitted having written the explanation Ext. P-15, but he would say that it was written at the dictation of P.W. 8. It is impossible to believe that P.W. 8 would have forced the accused to give a statement against his will and the accused would have agreed to give such a statement. If that be so, nothing prevents him from complaining about it later to the higher authorities. The argument that Ext. P-15 is hit by section 24 of the Evidence Act has no force. In the first place it cannot be taken that Ext. P-15 is a confessional statement; and secondly none of the vitiating circumstances are present. Suggestions of threat made by P.W. 8 has been denied by him. Learned Judge was, therefore, justified in taking into consideration Ext. P-15 also. 9. The case of the accused that in some cases excess amount had been collected by mistake, but they were refunded cannot easily be accepted. Rule 34 (c) of the Manual of Station Accounts shows that except in the cases mentioned in sub-rule (b) all applications for refund should be forwarded to the Chief Commercial Superintendent for disposal. Clause (b) empowers the station staff to give refunds only at the time the goods are delivered. It cannot be said that the entries in the railway accounts were made after the alleged refund was made. Rule 35 of the Manual provides that the entries in the Goods Cash Book should be made as each transaction takes place and should on no account be deferred. The accused does not say specifically that mistakes have been committed in these three cases and that he made the refund. Witnesses have denied the suggestion that they were sent for and excess amounts were refunded to them. On a careful consideration of all this evidence there cannot union of India be the slightest doubt that it was the accused who received the money from P.W. 4 and issued the receipt Ext. P-4. He received Rs. 275.55 p. and after crediting Rs. 255.55p. appropriated for himself Rs. 20. 10. Evidence regarding the delivery of the consignments covered by Ext. P-5 series and Ext. P-7 are also similar in nature. P-4. He received Rs. 275.55 p. and after crediting Rs. 255.55p. appropriated for himself Rs. 20. 10. Evidence regarding the delivery of the consignments covered by Ext. P-5 series and Ext. P-7 are also similar in nature. The consignments covered by Exts.P-5 and P-5 (a) arrived at the, Thikkoti Railway station on 13th July 1961 as can be seen from Ext. P-9 (k). The delivery was on 30th October 1951. Exts. P-9 (e), P-9 (f), P-11(d), P-11(e) and P-12(b) would show that only an amount of Rs. 156.10p. was credited towards freight and demurrage. Exts. P-9, P-9 (e) and P-9 (f) are entries in the Foreign Goods Delivery Register and Exts. P-11 (d) and P-11 (e) are the entries in the goods cash book. It was P.W. 5 who went and paid the money covered by this consignment and obtained the receipt Ext. P-6 . P.W. 5 has signed in the delivery register. Ext. P-12(b) the counterfoil receipt tallies with Ext. P-6 the receipt given to the party in all particulars except the amount. The machine numbers given in both are the same, i.e., 130545. In Ext. P-12(b) the amount of Rs. 156.10 p. is written in figures at the top. Subsequently the amount of Rs. 156.10 p. is written again in figures. It is clear that it was first written as one hundred seventy- six and ten in words. But the word seventy-six is altered by putting chain circles over the same and the word fifty-six is written beneath the same. On the reverse of Ext. P-12(b) the amount in words fifty-six alone is visible in carbon impression beneath the chain circles. I have carefully gone through these exhibits and I entertain no doubt that Ext. P-6 is the carbon copy of Ext. P-12(b). In Ext. P-6 the amount shown is Rs. 176.10.p. The dates mentioned in Ext. P-12 (b) and Ext. P-6 tally. So there can be no doubt that whoever had issued Ext. P-6 received an amount of Rs. 176.10p. from the consignee and credited only Rs. 156.10 p. In the accounts of the railway. As in Union of India the other case P.W- 5 does not remember as to which station master was then in charge and to whom he had actually handed over the amount. But he is definite that it was the amount shown in the receipt Ext. 156.10 p. In the accounts of the railway. As in Union of India the other case P.W- 5 does not remember as to which station master was then in charge and to whom he had actually handed over the amount. But he is definite that it was the amount shown in the receipt Ext. P-6 that he gave to the person in charge and it was he who wrote out and gave the receipt to him and it was he who took his signature in the register. He proves his signature in Ext. P-9. The account books kept in Prabhu's company also show that an amount of Rs. 176.10 p. was paid on 30th October 1961. Ext. P-3 is the day book and Ext. P-10 is the ledger. 11. Similarly, the consignment covered by Ext. P-7 reached Thikkoti Railway Station on 27th November 1961. Railway records show that it was delivered the same day after collecting Rs. 71.05. Ext. P-9 (a) is the entry in the Foreign Goods Delivery Register. Ext. P-11(f) is the entry in the goods cash book and Ext. P-13(a) is the record foil of the receipt issued to the party. Ext. P-8 is the receipt issued to the party and it shows that Rs. 81.05 p. was really collected. It was P.W.3 Sankaran Nair who went and paid the money and obtained the receipt Ext. P-8. He has identified his signature in Ext. P-9 (a). He has stated that the receipt obtained by him has been handed over to the cashier of the office. The machine number in Ext. P-8 and in the counterfoil Ext. P-13(a) are the same. 12. The next question is whether there is proof that Exts. P-6 and P-8 are in the hand-writing of the accused and whether it was he who had received the money and issued receipt. In Ext. P-15 the accused has admitted having issued Ext. P-6. Exts. P-6 and P-8 are proved by P.W. 9 to be in the hand-writing of the accused and the other relevant entries are also proved to be in the hand-writing of the accused. P.W. 9 bears no enmity with the accused and nothing I has been pointed out to discredit his testimony. His evidence is well corroborated by the opinion of the expert P.W. 10. He has given cogent reasons for his opinion. If therefore it is proved that the receipts Exts. P.W. 9 bears no enmity with the accused and nothing I has been pointed out to discredit his testimony. His evidence is well corroborated by the opinion of the expert P.W. 10. He has given cogent reasons for his opinion. If therefore it is proved that the receipts Exts. P-6 and P-8 have been issued by the accused and that they are in his hand-writing there cannot be the slightest doubt that it was the accused and accused alone who must have received the amount and made necessary entries in the books of the station and who had appropriated for himself the difference between the amount actually received and the amount credited in the railway books. The conviction of the accused is therefore well justified. In the result the conviction and sentence are confirmed and the appeal filed by the accused is dismissed.