Debendra Singha vs The State of Assam

K.N. Saikia, J.—This criminal appeal is from the judgment of the special Judge Cashure at Slichar convicting the Appellant u/s 5(2) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 165 I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another month.

G.R. Case No 29815 of 1975 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, shortly The Act'' was registered in then Police: Station on a First Information Report lodged by S.A. Choudhury, Executive Magistrate and Land Acquisition Officer, Silchar (P.W. 3) on receipt of a written complaint of one Md. Hussain Ali Borbhulya (P.W. 1) made before the Addi tional Deputy Commissioner, Silchar. The ease was investigated first by P.W. 9. Rajkumar Joydiv Singh and after him, by P.W. 10. Monmath Ram Gayan. The learned Special Judge, Cachar framed charge u/s 5(2) road with Section 5(l)(d) of the Act read with Section 165 I.P.C. for the Appellant''s having accepted a sum of Rs. 15/- from P.W. 1 by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant as a gratification for acting upon a petition. At the trial ten P.Ws. but no D.Ws. were examined. In his statement under Sections 313 Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellant denied the charge and stuped that when the Land Acquisition Officer (P.W. 5) asked him about the allegations be denied it; that no money was recovered from him; and that case was a fabricated one.

The prosecution case is based on the evidence of a trap witness (P.W. 1), search and seizures by P. Ws 5, 9 and 10, and the oral evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 1''s version is that one Marquis Christian, who was allotted a plot of land, but did not cultivate it himself, on request to transfer the land to the witness, asked him to submit, a petition at the Land Acquisition Office and when the witness submitted his application the Appellant, a clerk in the Land Acquisition Office, demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/-. P.W. 1 being unable to pay informed P.W. 2, Ansarul Haque Laskar, a member of the Youth Congress and with him went to the L.A.O., P.W. 5 and complained before him, but the latter assured, that be would talk to the Appellant.

When thereafter P.W. 1 enquired of the Appellant whether his work would be dona, the latter reduced the demand of bribe to Rs. 50/- but the witness agreed to pay Rs. 23/-, paid Rs. l0/-that tidy and returned home. Next day he borrowed Rs. 15/-. and is advised by P. Ws. 2 went to Deputy Commissioner No. 2. (sic)meaning (A.D.C.) and informed of his troubles, and the A.D.C. (sic)ked him to submit a written application and as the witness did not know how to write one, the D.C. No. 2 asked P.W. 5 to write the application and then written and read out, the fitness signed. Ext. i is the application and Ext, 1(2) is the Witness''s...signature. Receiving .the application the A.D.C. telephoned and one S.l. of Police (P.W. 9) and Sub-Divisional Officer (P.W. 1) arrived, All asked, the witness produced Rs. 15/-in two five-rupee notes and live one-rupee notes- P.W. 3, Niranjan Ghosh, the S.D.O., Silchar took the amount and with P.W. 9 took P.W. 1, went to an office under a tree and in presence of the police officer, signed the notes and gave those back to P.W. 1 and asked him to go to the Appellant and to give him those notes, if the latter demanded babe, and give indication by rubbing his head if the Appellant took the money. When the witness accordingly went, the Appellant asked him why he was so late and asked for the money. The witness said that on the previous day he gave Rs. 10/- and that day he brought remaining Rs. 15/- and gave it to the Appellant who counted the notes and put into his chest packet. Receiving the money, takwg some papers, the Appellant came to P.W. 5 with the file. AS that time P.W. 3 arrived and P.W. 9, who also arrived, asked for P.W. 5''s permission to make a search of the person of the Appellant, which being, granted P.W. 5 searched out the currency notes of Rs. 16/- (Re 1/- belonging to the Appellant) (Material Ext. 1) from the pocket of the Appellant. This was done as P.W. 1 rubbed his head. P.W. 3, seized the notes by seizure list, Ext. 2 on which the witness signed. In cross-examination this witness stated that the Appellant had been demanding money (sic)nce he tiled his application, but for about 6/7 months he did not inform anybody about it, and that only about 15 days'' before the occurrence he went to the residence of P.W. 5 along with P.W. 2, thereafter he again met the Appellant when he reduced the demand to Rs. 50/- and on the next day he collected Rs. 15/- and proceeded as stated above. At the time of P.W. 3''s signing the notes, P.W. 3, P.w. 9 and an officer in khaki dress and the witness were present. In the Assistant''s room 10/15 more assistant worked out at the time of his giving he notes no other assistant or office peon or anybody else with in the office. P.W. 9, came to the room of P.W. 5 about 10/13 minutes after the witness entered the room .and P.W. 3 came about 5 minutes thereafter. In cross-examination he says that P.W. 9 made the search, took out the money from the Appellant and placed the same on P.W. 5''s table and at that time besides the witness, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 9 and 13/16 other people were present.

P.W.5, the L.A.O. corroborates P.W. 1 as regards complaint by P.W. 2 and about delaying action on P.W. 1''s application by the Appellant. According to him it was only the previous day and the next duty that he called the Appellant, enquired about the application and directed the Appellant to put up the same before him at about 2 P.M. Ha also corroborates P.W. 1 when he says that at about 1 P.M. the A.D. C. called him and arriving in At A.D.C.''s chamber he found P.W. 1 complaining to the A.D.C. about the delaying of his application and demanding some money when P.W. 3 was called by the. A.D.C. who asked P.W. 1 to submit a written application and the same was written by P.W. 5 and signed and submitted by P.W. 1 and then the A.D.C. endorsed the petition to the S.D.O. and to him for laying a trap, Ext. 1(2) being that endorsement with signature of A.D.C. and that P.W. 3 put his signature on the currency notes and handed over those to P.W. 1. He gives the numbers of the currency notes which were initiated by P.W. 3 including one uninitiated one-rupee note which belonged to the Appellant. He also states that P.W. 9 also come to the A.D.C. office. Then P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 in the former''s jeep went to S.P''s office and therefrom to his office.

From the evident of P.W. 1 corroborated by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5, there arises no doubt about P.W. 1''s having filed the application, the Appellant''s delaying action on it and demanding bribe from P.W. 1 and the latter reporting the matter to the A.D.C. who got a written application signed by P.W. 1. and gave to P.W. 3 for laying a trap. Minor discrepancy about when the demand was made and after thereof P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to P.W. 5 and how many days thereafter to the A.D.C are not materials.

There is no dispute about P.W. 3 having earlier sighed (sic) notes, P.W. 1 dearly Muted that when he produced Rs. 15/-two five rupee notes and five one rupee notes P.W. 3 took the fount, and that P.W. 9 took P.W. 1 to an office located under tree where P.W. 3 and P.W. 9 told a police officer in khaki dress the whole affairs and in presence of that police officer P.W. 3 signed the notes given by P.W. 1 and gave the notes to P.W. 1 saying "go to the assistant. If he askes for bribe, give him these notes". Then P.W. 9 took their position at other side of the house, each at some distance from the other, and taking some amount of cover and told me "if the assistant (sic) the money, rub (sic) with four hand. This a corroborated by P.W. 3 he said " I pay my initials on the A.O. Notes in presence of A.D.C. and 1 A.O. These notes were produced by Hussain Ali from his pocket. The initials were put in order to identify them if the notes were offered and accepted" He also said that he, P.W. 5 and P.W. 9 gave instruction to P.W. 1 to the effect that the latter should proceed to the Appellant and offer the signed G.C. notes, if the latter accepted, be would give a signal to them by rubbing his head with his hand. P.W. 5 also corroborates saying that P.W. 3 signed the currency notes at the instance of the A.D.C. for laying a trap and that M. Ext. 1 contained those currency notes. There is no doubt that some of the currency notes M. Ext. 1 contained signatures. P.W. 3 states that those notes contained his signature; and there is no reason to doubt that the signature is that of P.W. 3. I myself have examined the notes and I found that on two five rupee notes and four one rupee notes signatures are there, while on two on rupee notes there are no signatures. One of those two of course belonged to the Appellant. Under these circumstances there is no force in the submission that the signature on the currency notes were not proved according to law.

There is no eye witness to have seen P.W. 1 giving the signed G.O. notes to the Appellant. P.W. 1, as already seen, stated that after taking the signed G.C. notes when he went to the requisition office the Appellant angrily asked him as to why the was so late to which he replied that bringing of the money took time and that on the previous day he gave the Appellant Rs. 10/- find he had brought the remaining Rs. 15/-. Then the Appellant asked for the money and P.W. 1 gave him the money and the Appellant look the money, counted it and put it into his chest pocket and said twenty five rupees would not do and that twenty-five more should be paid when the work was finished. Taking some papers the Appellant then came to P.W. 5 who was sitting in his room. In cross examination he admitted that at the time of his giving Rs. 15/- no other office assistant or officer peon or anybody else was In the office. As he entered the room one Patowari came out. This is so vivid a description as the allay any doubt about its truth.

Several witnesses testify the searching out of the signed currency notes from the Appellant''s pocket in the office chamber of P.W. 5. According to P.W. 9 when he went to P.W. 5''s office chamber about 5/6 persons of the office staff were with P.W. 5. After his entrance P.W. 5 directed all his office staff members, except the Appellant, to go out of his chamber and then asked the Appellant to produce the contents of his pocket and the money so brought out was seized by P.W. 5 and then P.W. 3 and others came to P.W. 5''s office chamber. In cross examination he clearly states that only P.W. 5, be himself and the Appellant were present when the Appellant brought out themoney from his pocket, P.W. 3 and others came after a minute. He does not mention. about the presence of P.W. 1 who however, claims that the notes were taken from the Appellant''s pocket and were shown to him. P.W. 3 says that when he went to P.W. 5''s office chamber he found P.W. 5, P.W. 9, the Appellant, P.W. 1 and other office assistants, when P.W. 1 told that the Appellant accepted the money and P.W. 5 asked P.W. 9 to search the person of the Appellant and the latter found Rs. 16/- out of which notes of Rs. 15/- contained his initial. P.W. 5, as I have already noted, said that another Assistant named Bijit Dhar was present but he has not been examined. According to him also only when the money was taken out just then P.W. 3, DIPROM. De and another assistant arrived.

There is some discrepancy about the seizure of the notes P.W. 5. stated that at the moment the Appellant came with his file and wanted to speak something to him, P.W. 9 told him that he wanted to search the person of the Appellant when Bijit Dhar (sic) examined) was also present, In course of the search money taken out from the person of the Appellant and just then P.W. 3, DIPRO Monoj De and another assistant arrived. His (sic)Assistant, Bijit Dhar and some other Assistants were present. the upper pocket of the Appellant''s shirt some G.C. notes (sic) handkerchief were found. P.W. 9 pulled it out. Then P.W. 9 took note of the numbers of the G.C. notes. Two G.C, (sic) of five rupee denomination and 6 G.C. notes of one rupee nominations were found (M. Ext. 1). P.W. 9 seized the G.C. (sic)tes and the shirt. As per S.D.O''s direction he (P.W. 5) seized the money and the shirt vide seizure list, Ext. 4, Ext. 4(1) being signature of P.W. 3 and Ext. 4(2) his signature, Ext. 4(3) signature of Manoj De, Ext. 4(4) signature of P.W. 9. P.W. 1 also signed Ext. 2. Two other persons, namely, Nebendra Sekhar Nath and Sashi Mohan Nath also signed Ext. 4 their signatures being Ext. 4(5), and 4(6), P.W. 9 says that after his entrance into P.W. 5''s chamber the latter directed all his staff members, except the Appellant, to go out of his chamber, and then asked the Appellant to produce the contents of his pocket, Some money (sic)s brought out by the Appellant and the same was seized by P.W. 5. Then P.W. 3 and others came into P.W. 5''s office chamber, Appellant produced from his pocket Rs. 16/- in two five rupee (sic) and six one rupee notes (M. Ext. l). P.W. 5 prepared the (sic)seized list and the witness (P.W. 9) seized that seizure list, Ext. 4, Ext. 4(4) being his signature. Then he left. In cross-exarnination, he said when the Appellant brought out the money from his pocket P.W. 5. the Appellant and P.W. 9 were present, P.W. 3 and others came after minute. The seizure list was written by P.W. 5. The Appellant brought out the money and handed over to P.W. 5, who prepared the seizure list after counting the money. P.W. 9 did not get his person searched before entering to the office chamber of P.W. 5. He categorically stated that did search the person of the Appellant. The other seizure witness came into the room when P.W. 5 prepared the seizure P.W. 3. says that he proceeded to P.W. 5''s office chamber asked DIPRO Shri M. Deb and Nabendu Nath to follow they did. Going to P.W. 5''s chamber he found P.W. 5, P.W. 9, P.W. 1 the Appellant and other office assistant. P.W. 1 told him that the Appellant accepted money. P.W. 5 asked P.W. 9 to search the person of the Appellant. P.W. 9 found in the Appellant''s pocket Rs. 16/- out of which G.C. notes of Rs. 15/- contained initials. P.W. 5 seized the notes. The Appellant''s shirt was also seized by Ext. 4. He admits that prior to going to the office chamber P.W. 5 for detection his person and the persons of P.W. 1. P.W. 5 and P.W. 9 were not searched. According to him P.W. 9 sought permission of P.W. 5 and with his permission Searched the Appellant and even at that time P.W. 9''s person was not starched. He reiterates that P.W. 5 seized the G.C. notes brought out from the pocket of the Appellant, According to P.W. 1, P.W. 9 asked for P.W. 5''s permission to make a search of the person of the Appellant and P.W. 5 granted that permission and on checking P.W. 9 found currency notes; of Rs. 16/- in the Appellant''s pocket. The notes ware taken out from the Appellant''s pocket and all those notes contained the signature of the Magistrate. In Cross-examination he filtrates that P.W. 9 made the search, took out the money and placed the same on P.W. 5''s table. At that time the witness, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 9 and 15/l6 other persons were present. From the above evidence, there arises no doubt about the searching out of the signed G.C. Notes from the pocket of the Appellant. Even if he himself brought out those notes, the effect should be the same in so far as his possessing those notes was concerned. The seizure list has not been challenged.

Mr. A.K. Das, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits'' that there was no sanction for prosecution obtained according to the law; that the investigation and the search and seizure were illegal ; that there was no direct evidence of the Appellant''s having taken the money that there was no disinterested witness examined in this case ; and that the trap witness, P.W. 1, was unreliable.

It is submitted that the investigation was illegal in as-much as P.W. 9 was not authorised to investigate after laying the trap on 7.11.75 and though latter authority was given to P.W. 10 only on 8.11.75 but the major part of the investigation was completed on 7.11.75 itself. It is, however, admitted that, on 8.11.75 P.W. 10 had valid permission. In Sailendra Nath Bose State of Bihar, AIR 1968 S.C. 1292 it has been held, that a permission u/s 5A is a permission to investigate the case and laying the trap is a part of the investigation. Investigation includes all the proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the collection of evidence conduced (sic) police officer or by person (other than a Magistrate) who (sic)authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf, Section 5A does (sic)contemplate two sanctions, one for laying a trap and Anr. (sic)further investigation, Once an order under that provision; made, that order covers the entire investigation. In the instant case there is no denial that P.W. 9 without permission u/s 5A of the Act participated in laying the trap and also started investigation on 7.11.75. But there is evidence to show P.W. 10, being properly authorised on 8.11,75 took over the Investigation from P.W. 9 and examined witnesses seized the seizure In State v. H(sic)abnm Harideva Sarma 1971 Cri.L.J. where the search and seizure were made by an officer not authorised urder Section 5A and re-investigation was made subsequently by a competent officer, it was held that the Court could not order search and seizure again. Following that principle in the instant case the leisure made first by P.W. 5 and investigation by P.W. 9, and then by P.W. 10 cannot be said to be fatal to the trial. In Sailendrarath Bose case (supra) it has been held that an illegality committed in the course of an investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the court for trial and cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice beep caused thereby. In Stale of Madhva Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali AIR 1959 S.C. 701 : 1959 (Supp) 2 SCR 201 , the Supreme court has laid down that the statutory safeguards u/s 5A must strictly be complied with, for they are conceived public interest and were provided as a guarantee against frivolous and vexatious proceedings and that a Magistrate could not surrender his discretion to a police officer but must exercise it having regard to the relevant material made available to him at the stage of granting permission. He must also be satisfied that there is reason owing (sic) exigencies of the administrative convenience to entrust a subordinate officer with the investigation, and that it is desirable that the order giving the permission should Ordinarily in the face of it disclose the reasons for giving the permission. Ir. Nanak Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, where the investigation carried out by an Assistant Superintendent of Police below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and without the order of a Magistrate, 1st Class, as required by Section 5-A of the Act, but objection was neither taken before the Special Judge nor was it urged before the High Court, the Appellant could not be permitted to raise this contention for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also held that generally a conviction is not vitiated because there has not been strict com pliance with the provisions of the Act In the matter of investigation by a police officer unless the accused is shown to have been prejudiced. In the instant case we find that the entire district administration including the A.D.C., the S.D.O., the L.A.O., the Additional S.P., and the (sic)8,1, of Police were cautiously moving toward laying the trap, and P.W. 10 who took over the investigation was properly authorised. No objection on this ground appears to have been taken before the trial court. There is no evidence to show that the Appellant was prejudiced by this technical non-compliance. The trial, therefore, cannot be held to have been vitiated on this account.

Counsel submits that the sanction was not obtained as required by law, insamuch as the sanction order does not reveal application of mint by the sanctioning authority who was not examined. In AIR 1948 82 (Privy Council) it has been held that the giving of sanction confers jurisdiction on the court to try the case. With reference to Clause 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943 it was held that the facts in respect of which sanction was given should either be referred to on face of the sanction or it must be proved by extraneous evidence that they were placed before sanctioning authority. Sanction being invalid, the defect could not be cured u/s 537 Code of Criminal Procedure Admittedly previous sanction was necessary for prosecution in this case u/s 6 of the Act me charge having included Section 165 I.P.C. and Sub-Suction (2) of sections of the Act and the offence being alleged to have been committed by the Appellant who was a public servant as was laid down in S.A. Venkataramon v. The State AIR 1958 SC 707. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 617 relying on AIR 1948 82 (Privy Council) the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving that the requisite sanction has been obtained rests on the prosecution and such burden includes proof that the sanctioning (sic)authority had given the sanction in reference to facts (sic)which the proposed prosecution was to he based: these facts (sic) appear on the face of the sanction or may be proved by (sic) evidence and that where the facts considering the (sic) do not appear on the face of the letter sanctioning the prosecution, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by (sic) evidence that the material facts constituting the offence placed before the sanctioning authority. Where this is not done, the sanction may be held to be elective, and on invalid sanction cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court to try the case. In Jaswant Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, also it was observed that it should be clear from the sanction itself that the (sic)nce before and after a (sic) of all circumstances of the face should be prosecution matter can be proved by other evidence in the (sic) itself the face should be accured to (sic)shall the sanctioning (sic) had appoint it (sic) and circumstances of the case. Earlier in Yesafally Mulla as the (sic) AIR 1949 264 (Privy Council) Ind App 158 it was held that valid sanction on separate charges of hoarding and profiteering was essential to give the Court jurisdiction to try the charge and without such sanction, the prosecution would be nullity the trial without jurisdiction.

In the instant case Ext. 10 is the sanction given by Deputy Commissioner, Cachar vide No. SMAJ 19/75/194 stated 21st January, 1976. It reads:

Read report of City Inspector of Police, Silchar forwarded by Addl, Supdt. (sic) under his No. GLSR-218/- 75/23881 dated 23/1275.

ORDER

On consideration of relevant papers 1, Sri B. Hazarika, ACS, Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar do hereby sanction prosecution of Sri Debendra Chandra Singha @ Deben Singha L.D.A., Land Acquisition Branch of D.C. Office Silchar in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No. 40(11) 75 Under Section, 165 I.P.C. road with Section 5(2) of P.C. Act in the Court of Law under provision of Sections 6 of P.C. Act (Act No. 2 of 1947).

The sanctioning authority was not examined nor was the City Inspector of police and die Addl. S.P. Ex. facie it shows that the report of the City Inspector of Police was read and relevant paper, were considered P.W. 10 deposed that placed all the papers before the Deputy Commissioner and that after going through all the papers the D.C. accorded sanction, for prosecution. This statement was not challenged in cross-examination nor was the signature of the Deputy Commissioner on Ext. 10 challenged. In face of the above evidence it will not be safe to hold that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind while according the sanction for prosecution. The sanction was in accordance with law.

Counsel lastly submits that there was over enthusiasm on the part of the witnesses to get the Appellant convinced, Considering the evidence on record it cannot be said that there was any such over enthusiasm. Nothing has been shown as to why the entire district administration should have moved against the Appellant. When there was a complaint made to the A.D.C. he could not have closed his eyes, and if the application was endorsed to the S.D.O., the latter was expected to take action on it for which it was natural to have consulted the L.A.O., P.W. 5. It was also natural to have consulted the Addl. S.P. for whom it was natural to have deputed one S.I. of police to prepare laying a trap and to investigate. The S.D.O''s putting his initials on G.C. notes formed part of it. In this sense they cannot be said to have been interested witnesses, Even so, it is necessary to keep in mind what was stated in Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab AIR 1973 S.C. following AIR 1939 S.C. 300 (State of Bihar v. Basawan singh) that where the witnesses were concerned in the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused persons. In Som Prakash Vs. State of Delhi, it has been held that the demanding degree of proof traditionally required in a criminal case and the devaluation suffered by a witness who is naturally involved in the fruits of his investigative efforts, suggest the legitimate search for corroboration from an independent or unfaltering source-human or circumstantial make judicial certitude doubly sure In Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, it has been observed that the functioning in the anti corruption department must cautiously your to secure really independent and respectable witnesses that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the (sic) of the court and the court is not left in any doubt as whether or not any money was paid to the public servant way of bribe. They should insist on observing this safeguard the protection of public servants against whom a trap may been laid. In that particular case the search witnesses Interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence with regard the giving of bribe and the recovery of the amount from the (sic)on of the accused was not relied upon. In Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration), the Court not agree with the submission that no conviction can be (sic)on the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness and served that a trap witness may perhaps be considered If a person interested in the success, of the trap may (sic)tle a court to view his evidence as that of an interested witness. Where the circumstances justify it a court may refuse. act upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness. On other band a court may well be justified in acting upon (sic) uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness, if the court is (sic)ed from the facts and circumstances of the case that the witness is a witness of truth. In that case though the Appellant do not touch the money (Rs. 30-) but asked the giver to (sic) it inside the file and when so put held the under his (sic) his conviction was upheld.

Applying the above principles in the instant case, though prosecution witnesses may perhaps be called interested wit-ness in the sense they wire concerned in success of the trap, (sic) cannot be called interested witnesses in the sense that they (sic) out to procure conviction of the Appellant. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, the Additional S.P., the S.D.O. (P.W. 3) L.A.O. (P.W. 5) and the Police officers (P. Ws 9 and 10 ) (sic)not have been over enthusiast for getting the Appellant expected. Nor can there be any explanation as to why P.W. 1 P.W. 2 should have at all be inimical to the Appellant Before the application, the delay, and the alleged demand bribe. There can also be no other explanation of the signed (sic)ency notes being recovered from the Appellant pocket.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of case, 1 find no Infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction 1 also do not find any reason to, interfere with the sentence. The appeal is accordingly rejected, The Appellant is on bail. He is to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence, subject to set off u/s 428 Code of Criminal Procedure.