Jagat Narain Nag v. State of Rajasthan — 1979 DIGILAW 32 (RAJ)

K.S. SIDHU, J.—This judgment will deal with the two connected appeals listed above which have arisen from one and the same judgment in a criminal trial held by the Special Judge, Alwar, Jagat Narain Nag (the appellant in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 1972) and Ram Singh (the appellant in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 1972) who were working at the material time as Head Master and teacher-cum-cashier, respectively, in Gandhi National School Alwar, have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge as follows:— (i) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-or in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three years, each, under section 409, I. P. C. (ii) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, each, under section 468 I. P. C. (iii) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years each, under sec. 477-A, I.P.C. (iv) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, each, under section 120-B, I. P. C. (v) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-or, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, each, under section 5 (2) read with section 5(1) (C) and 5 (1)(D), Prevention of Corruption Act. All the five sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution against the appellants originated on a report in writing, Ex. P/36, dated April 6, 1960, mader by the Inspector of Schools, Alwar, simultaneously to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Alwar. The Inspector of Schools reported that a total sum of Rs. 21154.44, consisting of 13 different items entered as expenditure in the cash book has been embezzled by the appellants since they were not able to produce the receipts of payees against these items. He further reported that in addition to those 13 items, the accused were also suspected of having committed embezzlement of more amount. 3. On a formal F.I.R. being registered, the police took up investigation. He further reported that in addition to those 13 items, the accused were also suspected of having committed embezzlement of more amount. 3. On a formal F.I.R. being registered, the police took up investigation. It transpired as a result of their investigation that Jagat Narain Nag and Ram Singh had a long association with each other, as Head Master and Teacher-cum-Cashier of Gandhi National School, Alwar, and that this school was designated by the government authorities concerned as the Pay Centre of all the government schools in the district of Alwar. Jagat Narain Nag was the drawing and disbursing officer and as such it was his duty to draw money from the State Bank of India, Alwar, branch, enter it in the cash book, disburse the amount to different schools and other persons entitled to payment, obtain receipts enter the disbursements in the cash book and other records, deposit the undisbursed cash in hand in the chest kept in the District Treasury. Ram Singh was to assist Nag in the discharge of these duties. He was required to make entries of income and expenditure handled by him in the cash book and other records and get the attestation of Nag on those entries. The entry as to Rs. 20548.10 being the cash balance in hand in the Pay Centre cash book on January 23, 1960, was made by Ram Singh in his hand. In the entry immediately following thereto relating to January 25, 1960 (January 24, 1960 was apparently a close day), Jagat Narain Nag, who made the said entry in his own hand, is said to have "brought for ward" this amount of Rs. 20548.10 as the cash balance in hand and as the opening entry for the day. Nag had in the mean time received orders of his transfer from Alwar to Tonk. On January 30 1960, while handing over charge to his successor, Dial Das, PW 84, Nag entrusted to him a sum of Rs. 1347. 25 as the cash balance in hand as per Pay Centre cash book. He wrote the entries from January 25 to January 30 in-this cash book at one and the same time on January 30, and falsified the same by showing therein fictitious payments and deposits aggregating Rs. 20944.44 over this period. It further transpired that Jagat Narain Nag and Ram Singh had embezzled two other amounts of Rs. He wrote the entries from January 25 to January 30 in-this cash book at one and the same time on January 30, and falsified the same by showing therein fictitious payments and deposits aggregating Rs. 20944.44 over this period. It further transpired that Jagat Narain Nag and Ram Singh had embezzled two other amounts of Rs. 210 and Rs. 65. 67 relating the account of the Gandhi National School itself, as distinguished from the Pay Centre account, and falsified the account bocks of the said school by showing fictitious payments and forging the signatures of the so-called payees. The total embezzlement, according to the investigating agency, thus comes to Rs. 20944.44 Rs. 210 Rs. 65-67=Rs. 21220.11, which is said to have been committed by the two accused persons in conspiracy and collaboration with each other. 4. The learned Special Judge, Alwar, jointly tried the appellants under secs. 409,468, 477A, 120-B, I.P.C. and Sec. 5(2) read with secs. 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. As already stated both the appellants were found guilty of these charges and convicted and sentenced thereunder. 5. Both Jagat Narain Nag and Ram Singh have filed separate appeals from the order of conviction and sentence against them. 6. None entered appearance on behalf of appellant Ram Singh to submit the pleas in defence on his behalf. The appeal on behalf of Jagat Narain Nag was argued at considerable length. 7. In the fore front of his arguments learned counsel for appellant Nag raised the question as to the validity of sanction, Ex. P. 265, for the prosecution of the appellant under sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as given by G.K. Bhanot (PW 265) who was posted at the relevant time as Special Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Appointments Department. He raised the following points in respect of this matter. (i) The Special Secretary gave this sanction on his own without bringing the matter to the notice of the appointing authority, i.e. the Governor of Rajasthan. (ii) Even the Special Secretary, while giving the sanction, had no evidence before him to enable him to consider the matter properly; therefore, : the sanction was given by him without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. (ii) Even the Special Secretary, while giving the sanction, had no evidence before him to enable him to consider the matter properly; therefore, : the sanction was given by him without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The first point can be shortly disposed of, for under the Rajasthan Rules of Business, made by the Governor in exercise of his powers under Art. 166 of the Constitution of India, the Governor has made general rules for departmental disposal of business which, read with the relevant standing order issued by the Minister-in-Charge, clearly authorise in the departmental secretary to dispose of such a matter, as the giving of sanction in the present case, without reference to the Governor or the Minister-in-Charge. The court is required to take Judicial notice of such rules and standing orders. For the assurance of this Court, learned Public Prosecutor arranged to produce the rules and the standing order during the course of arguments. I am satisfied there from that G.K. Bhanot, as Special Secretary in the Appointments Department, Government of Rajasthan, was fully competent to give this sanction on his own without reference to the Governor or the Minister-in-charge. The first limb of this argument, therefore, fails. 9. The second limb of this argument is also without any force. It will be seen from the order, Ex. P. 265, that the facts constituting the offence against the provisions of sec. 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act were referred to on the face of the sanction. After detailing those facts in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of sanction, the sanctioning authority expressly mentioned in paragraph 3 that from the perusal of the record and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the said authority was satisfied that appellant Nag and the co-accused Ram Singh had committed offences under sec. 409 and 477-A I.P.C. and under sec. 5(l)(c) and (d) and (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with sec. 120-B I.P.C. It may therefore be safely concluded on the face of this sanction that the authority concerned had considered the evidence, before it accorded the sanction. 10. P.W. G.K. Bhanot who accorded this sanction, appearing as PW 261, testified that he had accorded the sanction after looking into and considering all the documents, including the report of the police officials who investigated the case. 10. P.W. G.K. Bhanot who accorded this sanction, appearing as PW 261, testified that he had accorded the sanction after looking into and considering all the documents, including the report of the police officials who investigated the case. He of course, admitted that he could not recall as to what particular documents he had seen before arriving at his conclusion. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that this admission by the witness should be construed to mean that he did not see any document other than the police report before giving the sanction, and that, therefore, according to the law laid down by the Supreme Court Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab (1), and by this Court itself Mithanlal vs. State (2), it must be held that the sanction was not properly accorded. This argument cannot possibly be accepted, for it runs counter to what appears on the record. As already stated, the sanctioning authority expressly mentioned in the order of sanction that it had perused the record and considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, thus making it clear that it had before it the entire record including the evidence and that it had considered that record. The said authority appeared on the stand and deposed that it had seen and considered all the documents. Under the circumstances there is no justification for the argument that all that PW Bhanot had seen was the police report and nothing else. 11. No argument was raised as to the validity of the other sanction (Ex. P-245) given by the Director of Education Rajasthan for the prosecution of Ram Singh. 12. It will therefore be seen that the sanctions accorded for the prosecution of the appellants are valid. The challenge to the validity of the sanction Ex. P. 265 in respect of appellant Nag therefore fails. 13. 1 may now discuss the charges framed against the appellants topic-wise. One of the charges framed against them is that they entered into a criminal conspiracy in that they agreed to commit criminal breach of trust, forgery falsification of accounts and criminal misconduct as public servants in January 1960. Section 120-A of the Indian Panel Code which defines criminal conspiracy enacts, inter alia, that if two or more persons agree to commit and offence, such .agreement amounts to criminal conspiracy. Section 120-A of the Indian Panel Code which defines criminal conspiracy enacts, inter alia, that if two or more persons agree to commit and offence, such .agreement amounts to criminal conspiracy. The very agreement or plot constitutes the offence of criminal conspiracy, which is a separate and distinct offence from the offence which they plan to and may actually commit. It is well settled that a formal agreement of the parties concerned is not essential to the formation of criminal conspiracy. It is enough that there is a mutual purpose or that there is a concurrence of sentiment and cooperative conduct in a criminal enterprise. Such agreement, mutual purpose of concurrence of sentiment and cooperative conduct may be proved by director circumstantial evidence or both. In fact, because of the difficulties in having direct evidence regarding such agreement mutual purpose or concurrence of sentiment and cooperative conduct, which must, in the nature of things, be secret, criminal conspiracy in most cases is proved by circumstantial evidence. 14. Section 10, Evidence Act is important in the context of circumstantial evidence to prove criminal conspiracy. It reads: "Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offencs or an actionable wrong, any thing said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. In Bhagwan Swarup vs. The State of Maharashtra (3) the Supreme Court has analysed the provisions of this section as follows;— (1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy: (2) If the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) Any thing said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) It would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) It can only be used against a co-conspirator and not in his favour. It will thus be seen from section 10 Evidence Act as explained by the Supreme Court that the rule of evidence embodied therein postulates that if there is prima facie evidence or foundation material, justifying the belief, as distinguished from conviction that two or more psrsons have conspired together to commit an offence, then, in that case, acts, declarations and conduct of each conspirator in reference to their common intention are admissible against all the conspirators. It is for this reason that in a charge of criminal canspiracy to commit an offence, as in the instant case, although no overt act need be proved to prove the charge, for the offence is complete by the mere agreement of the parties to commit an offence, overt acts are still proved, for direct evidencs of conspiracy is rarely availably. Such overt acts are relied on and proved as forming part of a mutual purpose, common design and co-operative conduct, thus proving an agreement to commit an offence. As the Supreme Court observed in Swami-rathnam vs. The State of Madras(4), overt acts would furnish best proof of the offence of Criminal conspiracy because the conspiracy was the root and overt acts were the fruit. 15. It is in the light of these principles of law that the charge of criminal conspiracy has to be adjudged. As the Supreme Court observed in Swami-rathnam vs. The State of Madras(4), overt acts would furnish best proof of the offence of Criminal conspiracy because the conspiracy was the root and overt acts were the fruit. 15. It is in the light of these principles of law that the charge of criminal conspiracy has to be adjudged. As is often the case, there is no direct evidence to prove the agreement between the appellants to commit various offences which they are said to have subsequently committed. The prima facie evidence or foundation material which induces a reasonable belief in the existence of such agreement or conspiracy is furnished by their mutual association as Head Master and Cashier in the same school. There is abundant evidence on the record to prove that, at the material time, both Jagat Narain Nag and Ram Singh were posted as Head Master and Teacher, respectively, in the Gandhi National School, Alwar. It is also established that, after Gandhi National School was designated by the authorities concerned as the Pay Centre for all the government schools in the district of Alwar, Jagat Narain Nag, as Head Master, was authorised to work as the drawing and disbursing officer of the Pay Centre and he, in turn, appointed Ram Singh, as Cashier in addition to the latters duties as a school teacher. Both of them appeared as defence witnesses and admitted this position. Ram Singh admitted that he had assumed charge as Cashier, vide charge report Ex. DA/31 on May 14, 1955 and that he had worked as such till January 30, 1960, when Nag was transferred and he himself proceeded on leave. PW. S.P. Bairathi, Deputy Director Education has deposed that he discovered during his inspection of the school that although it was the duty of Nag to keep the keys of the treasury chest in his safe custody, he quite often gave the keys to Ram Singh who opened the chest and took out money from it from time to time. He has further deposed that Nag and Ram Singh were both unable to produce before him any supportive vouchers of a number of entries of disbursement made in the cash book Ex. P/l during the period January 25, to January 30, 1960. He has further deposed that Nag and Ram Singh were both unable to produce before him any supportive vouchers of a number of entries of disbursement made in the cash book Ex. P/l during the period January 25, to January 30, 1960. Both Nag and Ram Singh admitted in their depositions that the treasury chest used to be opened by them singly or jointly according to their convenience. PW S.P. Bairathi stated that he discovered on embezzlement by the accused of a sum of Rs. 21154.44 and that therefore, he made a report in writing, Ex. P/36, against both of them to the District Magistrate, Alwar on April 6, 1960. All these facts furnish, in my opinion, prima facie evidence or foundation material justifying the belief (not conviction) that Nag and Ram Singh had conspired together on or about January 25, 1960, to commit the crimes of embezzlement, forgery and falsification of accounts. 16. Now that there is prima facie evidence available to induce a reasonable belief in the existence of a conspiracy it will be permissible to refer to the overt acts and conduct of the appellants in proof of the charge of conspiracy. I may first take up such overt acts and conduct of Ramsingh accused in reference to the common intention of both. Nathilal PW, a bill clerk of the Inspectorate of Alwar at the relevant time testified that the school cash book.Ex. P-18 and the disbursement registers, Ex.P/19 and Ex P.20, contain entries some of which are in the hand of Ram Singh and some of Nag. Ram Singh admitted in his deposition that he had made entries in the school cash book Ex.P/18 at the instance of Nag on January 27, and 28, 1960, although no disbursement at all had been made in his presence on these dates. He went a step further and stated that there was no question of making any disbursement on these dates, for Nag had himself passed orders earlier stooping all payments after January 23, 1960. That being so, the making of disbursement entries by Ram Singh on January 27 and 28, 1960, without there being any disbursement, on these dates in an act in reference to the common intention of both himself and Nag which strengthens the case of the prosecution as to the charge of criminal conspiracy. 17. That being so, the making of disbursement entries by Ram Singh on January 27 and 28, 1960, without there being any disbursement, on these dates in an act in reference to the common intention of both himself and Nag which strengthens the case of the prosecution as to the charge of criminal conspiracy. 17. On return from leave on February 8, 1960, Ram Singh admittedly started making entries in the cash book Ex.P/1 which had been started by Nag on January 25, 1960. It will be seen that from 8 February to bef., 26, 1960 Ram Singh made in Ex.P/1 four different entries of disbursement to whom payments had already been shown to have been made between January 25 and 30, 1960, as per the record prepared during that period by Nag and Ram Singh jointly, This is a conduct further corroborative of the existence of a criminal conspiracy between the two. 18. Ramsingh admittedly wrote out Ex.DA/10, which according to him, is a copy of the entries in the cash book Ex.P/1 from January 25 to 30, 1960. He says he prepared this document in March 1960, at the request of Nag who had by that time been transferred from Alwar and who according to Ramsingh, needed this copy in connection with departmental enquiries which were being made from him. Nag on the other hand says that since the cash book Ex.P/7 was finished on January 23, 1960, Ram Singh began to write the cash entries in loose sheets from January 25, 1960. According to him, cash registers in the prescribed form were not readily available in the stock. He further says that since he did not like handing over charge on the basis of loose sheet, Ex.DA/10, containing the cash entries, he copied out the said entries, on dictation from the loose sheets by Ram Singh, in the cash book Ex.P/1 for the period January 25 to 30, 1960, in one and the same sitting on January 30, 1960. 19. It is not necessary for our present purposed to find out which of these two versions is correct. In either case, this much is clear that both Nag and Ram Singh acted in such a manner as to give a clear indication of a mutual purpose, concurrence of sentiment and co-operative conduct in the furtherance of their criminal enterprise. 19. It is not necessary for our present purposed to find out which of these two versions is correct. In either case, this much is clear that both Nag and Ram Singh acted in such a manner as to give a clear indication of a mutual purpose, concurrence of sentiment and co-operative conduct in the furtherance of their criminal enterprise. Both of them were present, according to Dial Das PW 84, at the time Dial Das took over charge of the school from Nag on January 30, 1960. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that they prepared the entries in Ex. P/1 from January 25, to January 30, in concert with each other. It is difficult on the present evidence to say whether Ex. P/1 was prepared with the held of Ex. DA/10 or vice versa, but this much is definite that these two documents are inter-dependent and as such furnish eloquent testimony of the criminal conspiracy. 20. There is ample evidence on the record to prove, and Nag himself admits it, that while handing over the previous cash book Ex. P/1 and other registers to Nag on January 23, 1960, Ram Singh did not, notwithstanding his claim to the contrary, hand over the cash balance to him and nor did Nag care to check and verify the cash that day. Ram Singh admitted this much that he did not obtain from Nag any receipt etc. in that behalf; and he further stated in that context that he did not feel the necessity of any receipt, from him. This further lends assurance to the existence of a conspiracy between the two. 21. For all these reasons, the charge of criminal conspiracy, as framed, stands proved against both the appellants. 22. This takes me to the charges against the appellants under secs. 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with sec. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, secs. 409, 468 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. These are inter-connected and can, therefore, be discussed together. 23. There is massive evidence on the record to prove that appellant Nag in his capacity as Head Master, Gandhi National School, Alwar was in charge of the funds of the school and of the Pay Centre for the district of Alwar placed under his control and that as such he had been entrused with huge amounts. The cash book, Ex. There is massive evidence on the record to prove that appellant Nag in his capacity as Head Master, Gandhi National School, Alwar was in charge of the funds of the school and of the Pay Centre for the district of Alwar placed under his control and that as such he had been entrused with huge amounts. The cash book, Ex. P/7 of the Pay Centre would reveal that out of those funds for the Pay Centre alone, Nag was in custody of Rs. 20548.10 as the closing balance of January 23, 1960. He did not make any disbursement to any of the schools attached to the pay centre, Alwar from January 25, to January 30, 1960. Even then, the amount which he handed over to Dial Das P.W., his successor-in-office, on January 30, was Rs. 1347.25 only. The rest of the amount was falsely entered in the cash book Ex, P/1 as having been disbursed during that period. The cash book Ex. P/1 as having been disbursed during that period. The cash book and other account books were thus falsified by him and Ram Singh accused in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy to embezzle this amount. 24. Similarly, Nag as incharge of the school funds and school cash book Ex. P/18 embezzled a sum of Rs. 210/- in conspiracy and concert with his cashier Ram Singh. The cash book Ex. P/18 and the disbursement registers Ex. P/19 and Ex. P/20 contain a number of false and forged entries of disbursement made by both the appellants in their hand. 25. There is further evidence to prove that Nag encashed the amount of bills Ex. P/2 to Ex. P/6 from the treasury for disbursement to other persons. He did not enter this amount in the cash book or in any other book, for the intended to and did dishonestly misappropriate it in concert with Ram Singh. 26. Some of the material evidence appearing on the record may now be elaborated here. 27. In this judgment, the learned trial Judge has catalogued 228 cash books and listed the names of the prosecution witnesses who have produced and proved those cash books. These books would show that no such amount as is shown in the cash book Ex. P/1 to have been disbursed by the accused to various schools covered by the Pay Centre Alwar was ever received by them. The entries in Ex. These books would show that no such amount as is shown in the cash book Ex. P/1 to have been disbursed by the accused to various schools covered by the Pay Centre Alwar was ever received by them. The entries in Ex. P/1 in that behalf are clearly false. 28. The disbursement registers Ex. P/8 to Ex. P/17 which were checked by P.Ws. Nathilal and Kishanlal of the audit party clearly establish that the so-called disbursements which purport to have been made, according to the cash book Ex. P/1, to different schools from January 25 to 30, 1960 were in fact never made. Had there been any disbursement during the aforementioned period, the same would have been entered in the disbursement register relating to that period. It appears that the appellants who falsified the cash book Ex. P/1 on January 30, 1960, were in a hurry. They thought that the false entries in Ex. P alone would be enough to conceal their crime. The mind of a criminal seldom works on logical lines. That is why the appellants did not make any entry of disbursement in the registers, Ex. P/8 to Ex. P/17, corresponding to such entries in the cash book Ex. P/1 for the period from January 25 to 30, 1960. 29. P.Ws. Nathilal and Kishanlal discovered as a result of audit of these account books (see also report of Kishanlal, Ex. P/35) a total embezzlement of Rs. 20944.44. As per Ex. P. 1 Rs. 210/- as per Ex. P/18 in all Rs. 21154.44. They have testified that the appellants did not produce before them a single voucher to indicate an disbursement. They also stated that the entries in the school registers, viz, Ex. P/18 to Ex. P/20 from January 25 to 30, 1960, were in the hand of both the appellants. 30. The prosecution then produced a large number of witnesses including, for example, Hari Singh, Mohanlal, Babulal, Ramlal, Mamla Jatav, Gopal and Ramdayal. who testified that the entries of disbursements of various amounts as appearing in disbursement registers Ex. P/19 and Ex. P/20 which purport to bear their respective signatures were not signed by them and that in fact the appellants had not made any such disbursement to them. A reference to the cash book Ex. who testified that the entries of disbursements of various amounts as appearing in disbursement registers Ex. P/19 and Ex. P/20 which purport to bear their respective signatures were not signed by them and that in fact the appellants had not made any such disbursement to them. A reference to the cash book Ex. P/18 would reveal that the appellants had made entries in that book purporting to show that these disbursements had in fact been made. They are, therefore, guilty of forgery for the purpose of cheating and of falsification of these accounts. 31. PW Jai Gopal of the State Bank of India and PW S. P. Bairathi, Inspector of Schools, testified that Nag had encashed the bills Ex. P 2, P. 3, P. "4, P. 5 and P. 6. These amounts were neither entered in the cash books nor disbursed to the persons for whom these were withdrawn from the treasury. The conclusion is therefore inescapable that Nag had embezzled these amounts. 32. PW Vilatiti Ram, who was posted as Treasury Officer, testified with reference to the treasury register Ex. P./67, bank scrolls Ex. 68 to Ex. P/72 and the treasury schedule Ex. P/73 that a number of amounts which are shown in cash book Ex. P/l as having been deposited in the bank from January 25 to January 30, 1960, Were in fact not deposited. These amounts were embezzled by the accused inconspiracy and collaboration with each other. . . 33. Both the appellants are therefore guilty of the charges framed against them under sections 120-B, 468 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Nag who had been entrusted with these funds and had dominion over them has dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated them in close concert and conspiracy with appellant Ram Singh. He is, therefore, further guilty of the offences against section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (c) and 5 (1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act. Appellant Ram Singh who abetted these crimes by conspiracy is found guilty under section 409 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 5 (2) read with section 5(1) (c) and (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Ram Singh who abetted these crimes by conspiracy is found guilty under section 409 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 5 (2) read with section 5(1) (c) and (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. In recording this finding of abetment by conspiracy against Ram Singh, I am quite alive to the fact that section 109 was not mentioned as such in the chargesheet framed against him having regard however to the language of the said charge-sheet as a whole and especially to the charge of criminal conspiracy which specifically mentions that the crimes in question, for the commission of which they had hatched the criminal conspiracy, had in fact been committed, there is no question of any prejudice to Ram Singh by the omission to mentioned section 109 of Penal Code in the charge sheet. 34. The order of conviction passed by the learned trial Judge is therefore, affirmed with the alternations as indicated above. 35 This brings me to the question of sentence. Learned counsel for appellant Nag canvassed for leniency on the grounds that he had already been dismissed from service, that while in service he had been awarded a certificate of merit by the Educational Adviser to the Government of India on January 26, 1959, in recognition of his services as a teacher and that apart from the agony of a lengthy trial, the matter has remained pending for the last 18 years. It is further submitted that the appellant is nearly 60 years of age and that he had already undergone detention for nearly a month before he was released on bail. Taking into consideration all these facts, I do feel that reduction in the sentence would be justified. At the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the amount embezzled by the appellant in conspiracy with Ram Singh, his Cashier, is over Rs. 21,000/-. In modification of the order of the sentence passed by the Court below, therefore, I would sentence appellant Jagat Narain Nag to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, separately, under each of the sections 120-B, 409, 468 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (c) and 5 (1) (d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2,000/-, separately, under each of the sections 120-B, 409, 468 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (c) and 5 (1) (d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment at the rate of three months for each default. The substantive sentences of three months each, under various counts shall run concurrently. The sentences in default of payment of fine shall be undergone, consecutively, in addition to the substantive sentences. 36. Appellant Ram Singh is sentenced as follows: (1) Rigorous imprisonment for six months under sec. 120-B, I.P.C. (2) Rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, or in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 409 read with section 109 I. P. C. (3) Rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (c) and (d), Prevention of Corruption Act and section 109 I.P.C. (4) Rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 468 I.P.C. (5) Rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 477-A, I.P.C. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 37. The appellants shall be arrested forth-with for being committed to prison to serve out the sentences mentioned above.