JUDGMENT : Acharya, J. - The Appellant stands convicted u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced thereunder to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment to undergo R. I. for six months. He has also been convicted u/s 477-A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for six months. The above sentence of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is as follows: On 17-6-1964 : when the Appellant was working in the Upper class Booking Counter at the Cuttack Railway Station, he issued two 1st class single journey tickets for two passengers from Cuttack to Vizianagaram by 3 Up Howarah Madras Mail, and collected Rs. 61/- from them for the same. The tickets which were issued in the blank foils were required to be prepared in triplicate in the carbon process; but the Appellant prepared them separately mentioning the sum and the destination correctly in the foil issued to the passengers while in the second and the third copies, respectively known as record foil and accounts foil he mentioned the destination and class as Mancheswar by 2nd class, instead of Vizianagaram by 1st class and the fare was shown only to be Rs. 0. 85np. per ticket. He also entered similar incorrect details in the Daily Trains Cash Book, a Register for blank paper tickets maintained by him. In so doing a sum of Rs. 1.70 paise only was credited to the Railway accounts instead of Rs. 61/-, and thereby the balance of Rs. 5930 paise was misappropriated by the Appellant. On the above allegations charges u/s 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and u/s 477-A Indian Penal C ode were framed against the Appellant. 3. The Appellant pleaded guilty to the,above charges and prayed for mercy on the ground that this is his first offence. 4. Mr. Ghosh, the learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the judgment of conviction is bad in law as the Special Judge improperly recorded and incorrectly assessed the statements made by the accused. After charges were framed and read over and explained to the Appellant, he pleaded guilty, and the Special Judge took special care in recording his statements in accordance with Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure. After charges were framed and read over and explained to the Appellant, he pleaded guilty, and the Special Judge took special care in recording his statements in accordance with Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure. From the above record I find that all the possible relevant questions regarding the incriminating facts and circumstances constituting all the elements of the offences on which charges were framed against him were put to him in unambiguous terms. The Appellant in very clear terms answered the said questions admitting all the facts on which the above charges were framed. Moreover, the Appellant is an educated man, and I have no doubt that he understood the import and the affect of the questions which were put to him in clear terms. His answers to the said questions were also in unquivocal terms without any reservation, distinctly and deliberately admitting each and every fact constituting all the elements of the offences for which he was charged. 5. A few important and relevant questions and answers are quoted below: Q. While issuing the aforesaid local blank paper tickets you wrote in the account foil and record foil that the tickets were issued to Mancheswar from Cuttack by 2nd class ordinary charging Rly. fare of Rs. 0.85 per ticket and these do not correspond to the entries in the passenger foil supplied to the passenger. What have you to say? A. I made the entries in the record foil and the account foil but they do not agree with the passenger foil on each ticket. Q. In the aforesaid Register (Blank Paper Ticket Register) you noted on 17-6-1964 the ticket Nos. 533759, 60 were issued by 2nd class to Mancheswar collecting Rs. 1. 70 as total fare for both the tickets. The entries were made in your own hand. What have you to say? A. Yes, the entry is in my hand. Q. You have not entered in the aforesaid Register that the two tickets were issued to Vizianagaram by 1st class and that a sum of Rs. 61/- was collected as the total fare for both the tickets. What have you to say? A. I have not entered that fact in the Blank Paper Ticket Register. Q. You deposited a sum of Rs. 1.70 instead of Rs. 61/-collected from the passenger as Rly. 61/- was collected as the total fare for both the tickets. What have you to say? A. I have not entered that fact in the Blank Paper Ticket Register. Q. You deposited a sum of Rs. 1.70 instead of Rs. 61/-collected from the passenger as Rly. fare in respect of the 2 first class tickets 533759 and 533760 by making the necessary entries in the Trains Cash Book on 17-6-1964. What have you to say? A. Yes. You made false entries in the record foil and the accounts foil of the local blank paper ticket Nos. 533759 and 533760 as also in the local blank paper ticket register and the Trains Cash Book on 17-6-1964 intentionally to defraud the Rly. Administration in respect of the sun of Rs. 59.30 which you misappropriated from the Rly. fare collected from the passenger in respect of the aforesaid two tickets. What have you to say? A. Yes, I misappropriated the amount and made false entries. He at last pleaded for mercy on the ground that this was his first offence, and he misappropriated this amount in order to payoff the outstanding bills for the medicines purchased for his sick wife. 6. That being so, I am satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal, and as such the conviction of the Appellant for the offences charged is well founded. I however feel that ends of justice will be met if the sentence of fine imposed in addition to the sentence of imprisonment u/s 5(2) of Act II of 1947 is reduced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 100/-. The sentence passed u/s 477-A Indian Penal Code is maintained as such. 7. With this modification in the sentence of fine the appeal is hereby dismissed. The Appellant be directed to surrender to his bail bond to undergo the sentence of imprisonment passed against him Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed