Suraj Parkash vs State of Jammu and Kashmir

Y.P. Nargotra, J.—This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-6-1986 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption,

Jammu whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences u/s 467 RPC and Section 5(i)(d) punishable u/s 5(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, with a fine of Rs 1000/- and in default of

payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for each of the offences. Both the sentences have been ordered to

run concurrently.

Appellant Suraj Parkash Mishra, was the Accounts Clerk in the office of Dr. Abdul Majid, Block medical Officer, Samba in December, 1977.

Dr. Abdul Majid, Block Medical Officer was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and the appellant being the Cashier- Accounts Clerk was

maintaining the Cash Book and drawal register. It was his duty to prepare the bills and draw the money, after the same were attested /passed by

the Block Medical officer, with an authority to him to receive the money on his behalf and disburse the same to the rightful claimant.

The appellant alongwith Dr. Abdul Majid, BMO Samba (accused No. 1) were put on trial for commission of the offences under Sections 467

RPC and 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The case of the prosecution before the trial Court in short was that the appellant in the capacity of the Accounts Clerk prepared Vr No. 908 dated

10-12-1977 and Vr No. 7 dated 27-12-1977 for withdrawal of Rs 2400/- and Rs 1300/- respectively as G.P. Fund Advance for PWs Behari

Lal and Tara Devi employees and annexed therewith copies of the sanction orders of Dy Director, Health. The accused No. 1 Dr. Abdul Majid,

BMO who was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer passed the said vouchers under his signatures and authorized the accused/appellant for

collection of the amount of the Vouchers from Samba treasury. There-after the appellant/accused presented the Vouchers in the Treasury and

received the payment. The payments were not then accounted for in the office records which were being maintained by him nor the same were

disbursed to the subscribers PWs Behari Lal and Tara Devi who in fact had not at all applied for withdrawal of the G.P. Fund advances. The

withdrawals according to the prosecution were fraudulent. These fraudulent withdrawals initially came to be detected in the office of the

Accountant General.

The Accountant General deputed his representative to collect the required information and to contact personally the Block Medical officer,

Samba regarding the verification of the suspected withdrawals from G.P. Fund, but the Block Medical Officer intimated to him that no such

drawals stood made by him. The Treasury Officer, Samba however, confirmed that the drawals under the said Vouchers had been made by the

Block Medical Officer, Samba as per the treasury records, through Suraj Parkash Mishra appellant. To confirm the factual position Mr. C.L.

Sharma, Accounts Officer of the Directorate of Health Services was deputed to Samba by the Director, Health Services, Jammu. Mr. C.L.

Sharma, Accounts Officer reported to the Director, Health Services that no record of the two withdrawals was available in the office of the Block

Medical Officer, Samba. On this the Director, Health Services by his letter dated 9-8-1980 under his No. ACTP-972-74 laid the information with

the Vigilance Commissioner, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar. On receiving the letter firstly inquiry in terms of the Prevention of

Corruption Act 1975 was initiated, and subsequently however, on 5-2-1983 FIR for commission of the offence u/s 5(2) Prevention of Corruption

Act 2006 was registered and investigation commenced. After the completion of the investigation and after obtaining the necessary sanction from

the competent authority for prosecution of the accused, charge-sheet for seeking trial of the appellant as well as Dr Abdul Majid, BMO Samba

was filed before the trial Court.

The learned trial Court vide its order dated 21-7-1984 framed the charges against the appellant Suraj Parkash Mishra and his co-accused Dr.

Abdul Majid. The charge framed against accused Dr. Abdul Majid was as follows:

and the charge against the appellant was-

Both the accused before the trial Court pleaded not guilty. Hence the prosecution led the evidence for proving the charges and examined, PWs

Behari Lal; Bharat Bhushan, Om Parkash Pran Nath Bhat, Chaman Lal, Kewal Krishan Gupta, Sudershan Kumar, Smt Tara Devi, Ram Tirath,

Naveen Chander, Faquir Chand, R.L. Dhar, I.U Khan, Mehar Singh and Dewan Chand, the Investigating Officer.

The withdrawals under vouchers in issue had been made on account of G.P. Fund advance in respect of the subscribers PWs Behari Lal and

Tara Devi. PWs Behari Lal and Tara Devi in their evidence have asserted that neither they applied for withdrawal of G.P. Fund advance in Dec

1977 nor they had been paid the same. The accused have not set up anywhere defence that they had applied or had been paid the G.P. Fund

advances of Rs 2400/- and Rs 1300/-respectively.

To prove the withdrawals by the appellant/accused from Treasury the prosecution examined the Treasury Cashier PW Om Parkash who was at

that time the Cashier of the Govt. Treasury, Samba. He has stated that all the withdrawals in respect of the office of the Block Medical Officer,

Samba were used to the made from Govt. Treasury, Samba. It was his duty to make the payment on the bills duly passed. He has testified that in

December, 1977 for withdrawals on behalf of Block Medical officer, Samba accused /appellant Suraj Parkash used to come to him; that he has

seen the Voucher No. 7 dated 27-12-1977 mark ""A"". As per this Voucher he had made payment of Rs 1300/- to the accused/appellant on

account of G.P. Fund advance of Smt Taro Devi and had obtained his receipt on the Voucher (EXPW-SK/5). He has further stated that like-wise

on the basis of Voucher No. 908 dated 10-12-1977 EXPW-CL he had paid Rs 2400/- to the accused on account of G.P. Fund advance in

respect of Behari Lal and had obtained the receipt EXPW-SK-11 from him which the accused had executed in his presence and had appended

his signatures. On being cross-examined he stated that both the bills stood passed by the Treasury Officer. On the Bills the Block Medical Officer

had given the authority to the accused No. 2 (appellant). He admitted that the payments of the bills used to be recorded in the Bank Scroll. He

reiterated that he had made the payment to the accused.

So the evidence of PW Om Parkash is that he made the payments of Rs 2400/- and Rs 1300/- on account of the two bills i.e. Voucher No.

908 dated 12-12-1977 and Vr No. 7 dated 27-12-1977 to the accused/appellant against proper receipt under his signatures..

PW Dewan Chand Sub-Inspector in his statement has deposed that during investigation in presence of the Magistrate, he had obtained the

Specimen signatures and specimen hand-writing of accused EXPW-NM/1, EXPW-NM/2 and EXPW-NM/3. He has further stated that drawal

register in which the entries for withdrawals had been made stood erased by use of some chemical and for which the opinion of the hand-writing

expert was obtained by him.

PW Sudershan Kumar in his statement has identified the signatures of accused/appellant which he had appended on the leave applications

which had been seized by the investigator marked A-6 to A-10. During the investigation the questioned writings and signatures existing on the

vouchers in issue al-ongwith the sample writings and sample signatures obtained by the Investigating Officer from the accused as well as the

admitted signatures of the accused/appellant on the leave applications were sent for comparison to hand writing expert Dr R.L. Dhar. The drawal

register of the appellant was sent for examination to the handwriting expert I.U. Khan. After examination they tendered their opinion and in order

to prove their opinion, they were examined in the Court by the prosecution. As per the opinion of Dr. R.L. Dhar the body writings of voucher No.

7 and Voucher No. 908 tallied with the handwriting of the accused /appellant and his purported signatures on the vouchers also tallied with the

sample signatures of the appellant/accused. Like-wise the purported signatures of accused No. l on the vouchers tallied with his sample signatures.

As regards the drawal register under which the drawal was sought from the Treasury by the accused/appellant was examined by hand-writing

expert I.U. Khan, He has rendered the opinion that existing writing and figures Q-l was found to have been chemically erased and under ultra-

violet examination it could be deciphered as G.P. Bill of Behari Lal; 80 and the figure at Unit place could not be deciphered; G.P.F; and 2400/-.

Regarding portion Q-2 which had also been chemically erased he could deciphered the figure 2400/- and in the Treasury Vr column only figure ""8

and 15-12-77 could be deciphered. And portion Q revealed that writings and figures had been chemically erased which could be deciphered as

1300-00; BMO; 27.12.77 and stamp impressions Treasury officer, Samba.

On the above observations he opined that it was not possible to express any opinion regarding the authorship of deciphered writings mark Q-l

to Q-4 in comparison with S-l & S-2 on the basis of material supplied.

In order to prove that the Dy Director, Health had not issued any sanction order for according sanction to the withdrawal of G.P.F advances in

favour of PWs Behari Lal and Tara Devi, the prosecution has tendered evidence of PW Bharat Bhushan Suri, Sr. Assistant in the office of Dy

Director, Health. In his statement he has deposed that he had produced the G.P. Fund sanction order file in the office of the Anti Corruption and in

that file no sanction order relating to Smt Tara Devi and Behari Lal, Medical Assistant for the year 1977 was available. According to him as per

dispatch register entries dated 12-4-1977 and 6-6-1977 a letter No. 1723 dated 23-5-1977 was dispatched to CMO, Kathua which was

pertaining to the payment of rent dues of District Family Planning Office, Kathua and like-wise under dispatch No. 1720-22 letter of Deputy

Commissioner to the Director health Services, Jammu and CM. O Rajouri regarding anti-rabbi vaccine had been dispatched. He further stated that

he had seen the general dispatch register of Dy Director, health Jammu dated 14-10-1977 to 7-12-1977 under which no sanction order in favour

of Behari Lal is found to have been dispatched nor on 16-1-1977 any sanction order was dispatched in respect of Tara Devi. So according to the

evidence of PW Bharat Bhushan Suri as per dispatch register no sanction orders for sanctioning the withdrawal of G.P. F Advances in favour of

PWs Behari Lal and Taro Devi were ever dispatched under the purported dispatch numbers and dates.

The evidence of hand-writing expert Dr R.L. Dhar has been duly corroborated by the evidence of PWs Sudershan Kumar and Naveen

Chander.

PW Sudershan Kumar has testified that in the year 1977-78 he stood posted in the office of the Block Medical officer, Samba as Medical

Assistant where at that time Dr. Abdul Majid was the Block Medical Officer and the appellant/accused Suraj Parkash was the Accountant; that he

was working under Dr. Abdul Majid so had been seeing him writing and signing in routine on the official papers, so he was fully acquainted with his

handwriting and signatures; that he has seen Tr. Vr No. 7 dated 27-12-1977 mark ""A"", which bears the signatures of accused Dr. Abdul Majid at

five places which he identified. On this bill he also identified the signatures of the accused /appellant at three places. Like-wise he identified the

signatures of accused No. 1 Dr. Abdul Majid and accused No. 2/appellant on Voucher No. 908 dated 10-12-1977.

PW Naveen Chander another Medical Assistant has stated that in the year 1977 accused Dr. Abdul Majid was the Block Medical Officer,

Samba and Suraj Parkash appellant/accused was working there as Accountant; that as he has worked with both of them so he is acquainted with

their signatures and handwriting. He identified the signatures of the BMO Dr. Abdul Majid as well as of the appellant Suraj Parkash on both the

vouchers.

From the evidence of PWs Sudershan Kumar and Naveen Chandar, expert opinion of Dr. R.L. Dhar finds full corroboration. Dr. R.L. Dhar

has not been cross-examined at all by the accused and whereas in the cross-examination of PWs Sudershan Kumar and Naresh Chander nothing

has been brought out by the accused for impeaching their credibility. So from the evidence of the above said witnesses, it has cogently been

established by the prosecution that accused/appellant prepared the bills in issue and has appended his signatures thereon. It has also been

established that the said vouchers have been passed by Dr. Abdul Majid under his own signatures.

Both the accused when were confronted with the above circumstance appearing in the evidence of the said witnesses and called upon to

explain their position in their statements u/s 342 Cr.P.C they admitted the said circumstance. Dr. Abdul Majid however, tendered the further

explanation by saying-

Undisputedly the withdrawal of G.P. Fund Advance under the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules can be made only after the

competent authority accords sanction for the same. In the present case the competent authority for granting sanction for the withdrawal of G.P.

Fund advance was Dy Director, Health Services. As per the case of the prosecution alongwith the Vouchers, the copies of the sanction orders

purportedly issued by the Deputy Director Health (T) had been attached. The said copies of the sanction orders were attested as true copies of the

original by accused Dr. Abdul Majid, BMO. As per the evidence of Dr. R.L. Dhar, handwriting expert read with the statement of PWs Sudershan

Sharma and Naveen Chander, the signatures purportedly appended on the copies of the sanction orders for attesting the same as true copies were

that of Dr. Abdul Majid. Dr. Abdul Majid in his statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C has not denied his signatures thereon and admitted the same to be his

signatures. He has explained the circumstance in which he had attested the copies of the sanction orders of the Deputy Director, Health by saying

that he attested the same after he had found the initials of accused/appellant Suraj Parkash thereon and as such taken the documents as genuine.

He has further explained that accused/appellant Suraj Parkash had been presenting the documents before him for signatures in official routine.

Quite possibly he may have fraudulently obtained his signatures. Intentionally he had not attested the same"". Accused/appellant Suraj Parkash in his

statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C has admitted the fact that copies of the sanction orders EXPW-NC and EXPW-NC/1 were bearing his initials.

In the above circumstances, the prosecution was found to have thus, proved the following facts and circumstances:

(i) That PWs Behari Lal and Tara Devi had not at all applied for withdrawal of G.P. Fund Advances;

(ii) That accused / appellant Suraj Parkash prepared two vouchers No. 908 dated 10-12-1977 and No. 7 dated 27-12-1977 for withdrawal of

the amounts of Rs 2400/- and Rs 1300/- respectively on account of G.P. Fund Advances of PWs Behari Lal and Tara Devi respectively.

(iii) That after the preparation of the Bills he prepared the copies of the purported sanction orders of Dy Director, Health and appended his initials

thereon;

(iv) That the said two vouchers were attested/passed by the accused Dr. Abdul Majid under his signatures and after attesting copies of the

sanction orders authorizing the withdrawal of G.P. Fund advances purportedly issued by the Deputy Director for PWs Behari Lal and Tara Devi.

For both the vouchers/bills accused No. l Dr Abdul Majid authorized the appellant/accused Suraj Parkash for receiving the payment from the

Treasury and in this behalf attested his signatures on the said vouchers;

(v) That the accused/appellant presented the vouchers in the Govt Treasury Samba for payment whereon PW Om Parkash Cashier in the Treasury

made the payment of Rs 2400/- and Rs 1300/- to the accused/appellant after obtaining his receipts on the vouchers itself;

(vi) That as per the evidence of PWs Behari Lal and Tara Devi, the amounts received have not been disbursed to them. It is also not the case of

the accused that the said amounts were entered in the concerned Accounts Books and PW Kewal Krishan Gupta, Dy Director has also testified

that there was no entry found in the account books of the office of the Block Medical officer regarding the drawal or disbursement of the said

amounts.

(vii) As regards the purported sanction orders no sanction orders sanctioning the withdrawal of G.P. Fund advances in favour of Behari Lal and

Tara Devi were ever dispatched to the office of Block Medical Officer, Samba from the office of the Deputy Director, Health..

On the above circumstances established by the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant Suraj Parkash alone for the

commission of the offences u/s 467 RPC and 5(2) P.C. Act and sentenced him in the manner already said, whereas accused No. l Dr. Abdul

Majid has been acquitted of the charge by the impugned judgment, accepting his explanation tendered in his statement made u/s 342 Code of

Criminal Procedure.

The first contention of Mr. Raina, learned Counsel for the appellant is that on the facts established by the prosecution the offence u/s 467 RPC

cannot be said to have been constituted against the appellant alone in the face of the acquittal of accused No. l Dr. Abdul Majid, BMO. He argues

that the case of the prosecution against the appellant is that he prepared the vouchers and copies of the sanction orders purportedly issued by the

Deputy Director, Health. Until the vouchers were passed by the BMO accused No. l under his signatures and until the copies of the sanction

orders were attested again by the BMO accused No. l, these documents were incomplete and as such, were only scrap of papers without having

any value as they could not have been encashed. The documents prepared by the appellant became valuable security only after the accused No. l

appended his signatures. According to Mr. Raina in the absence of the accused No. l either as a co-accused or a prosecution witness, the

appellant alone cannot be legally convicted for the offence of forgery as contemplated by Section 467 RPC.

Section 467 provides:

Forgery of valuable security, will etc-Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt

a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends

thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an aquittance or receive

acknowledging he payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished

with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

From the bare reading of the above section, it is manifest that for establishing the offence u/s 467 RPC against a person, the prosecution has to

prove such facts beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt which satisfy the two ingredients, (1) that the document prepared by such person is one

of the documents mentioned in the section and (2) such document is not a genuine document but is a forgery.

Section 463 RPC defines the forgery as follows:

Forgery-Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or

to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit

fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

Thus a person who 'makes' any 'false document' or part of the document with the necessary requisite criminal intent commits the offence of

forgery. What the expression 'false document' used in Section 463 would mean?. Section 464 RPC provides as follows:

Making a false document - A person is said to make a false document-

First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the

execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or

executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a

time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or

Secondly-Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof,

after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or

Thirdly - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason or

unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or

the nature of the alteration.

Clause First in essence contemplates that a person who dishonestly or fraudulently 'signs', 'seals' or executes a document for causing it to be

believed it was signed, sealed or executed by a person who he knows has not actually signed, sealed or executed the same. For instance A draws

a bill of exchange on himself in the name of B without B's authority intending to discount it as genuine bill with a banker and intending to take up the

bill on its maturity. Here as A draws the bill with intent to deceive the banker by leading him to suppose that he had the authority of B, and thereby

to discount the bill. A is guilty of forgery (illustration - e), Or suppose A affixes Z's signature to a document purporting to be the conveyance of an

estate from Z to A with the intention of selling the estate to B and obtains the purchase money. A has committed the forgery.

Clause secondly deals with the case where a person without the lawful authority dishonestly or fraudulently causes by cancellation or otherwise

alters a document in any material part after it has been made or executed. And clause thirdly is attracted where a person causes another person to

sign, seal or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or by reason of fraud practiced upon

him, does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.

In the present case the appellant prepared the vouchers and the copies of the purported sanction orders which have been passed/attested by

BMO accused No. 1 admittedly, therefore, clauses firstly and secondly of Section 464 are not attracted. Clause thirdly would be attracted against

the appellant only if it is proved by the prosecution that he caused B.M.O accused No. l his Drawing and Disbursing Officer to sign on the

vouchers for passing the same and to sign on the copies of the purported sanction orders for attesting the same as true copies of the original when

he was incapacitated to know the contents of those documents either because of his being in an intoxicated position, or being of unsound mind or

because of the deception practiced upon him. However, in the case neither the prosecution has led any evidence to establish the said fact, nor such

is its case against the appellant. The best evidence, if so were the case of the prosecution would have been that of the accused No. 1 BMO. As

the prosecution case was not so and was that the appellant prepared the vouchers for withdrawal of G.P. Fund and thereafter accused No. 2

attested the documents which were valuable security so both of them had become liable for the forgery. The defence set up by the accused No. 1

Dr Abdul Majid was that he had signed/attested the documents in good faith, in his statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C the same could not be legally read

against the appellant validly for holding him liable for forgery by the trial Court while accepting the same for recording acquittal of accused No. l.

Even the acquittal of the accused No. 1 could not be recorded by the trial Court on the basis of said defence. He could only be exonerated of the

charge and appellant be convicted if it had established him either by way of cross- examination or by defence evidence that when he

signed/attested the documents in issue he was disabled to know the contents of the documents he was signing/attesting. His bald explanation in his

statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C was not enough. Simple explanation of an accused charged for the offence of forgery that he acted bonafide without

establishing his disability to know the contents of the documents, he signs, is not a valid defence in law to the charge of forgery. Learned trial

Court, therefore, erred in law for acquitting the accused No. 1 Dr. Abdul Majid, BMO and for convicting the appellant alone for forgery.

Be that so the fact remains that acquittal of accused No. 1 BMO cannot now be altered to conviction because the same has acquired finality

for having not been appealed against by the State, and therefore, the conviction of the appellant alone cannot be legally sustained, because there is

no evidence to prove that appellant caused the accused No. l to sign on the vouchers and purported sanction orders when he was incapacitated to

know the contents thereof because of intoxication, unsoundness of mind or deception practiced upon him. The fact that the appellant wrote the

body writing of the vouchers and copies of the sanction orders by itself does not make him liable for forgery. Because the 'false documents' cannot

be said to have been 'made' until those were signed/attested by accused No. l.

On the above reasoning I hold that offence u/s 467 RPC is not constituted against the accused- appellant.

As regards the conviction of the appellant for commission of the offence u/s 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, the contention of learned Counsel

for the appellant is that prosecution has not proved cogently that the appellant received the amounts under the vouchers in issue from the Treasury.

He seeks reliance upon the enquiry report EXPW-KK of PW K.K. Gupta, who in his statement has proved the same, in which he has stated:

Shri Om Parkash Sethi was working as Cashier during December, 1977, since he has not mentioned the name of the payee in his cash book, it is

not clear to whom he has made the payment. He has also been negligent in the performance of his duties.

The above evidence of PW K.K. Gupta, in my opinion cannot be of any help to the appellant. The best evidence on the point of receipt of

money by the appellant could be of the person who had actually made the payment. The prosecution has examined PW Om Parkash, Cashier of

the Treasury, who in his statement in categoric terms stated that he paid the amounts under the vouchers in issue to the appellant and obtained his

receipt under his own signatures upon the vouchers itself. Nothing has been brought out by the appellant in his cross-examination to impeach his

credibility. Therefore, he PW Om Parkash deserves full reliance. The evidence of PW K.K. Gupta cannot be read for falsifying the stand of PW

Om Parkash because it is not his version that he had examined the vouchers in issue and had not found thereon the receipt of the appellant. The

prosecution is thus found to have cogently, completely and beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt proved that the appellant received the amounts

under the said vouchers from the Treasury. After having received the same it was for the appellant to explain as to what he did with the money. It is

in the evidence of the prosecution that neither the said money was accounted for by the appellant in the official account books nor he paid the same

to the persons for whom the same had been withdrawn. Therefore, he has failed to account and his failure to account for the same renders him

liable for the offence contemplated by Section 5(1)(c) punishable u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 2006.

The learned trial Court has awarded him the sentence to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1000/- for the offence

under-section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act 2006, which in my view deserves to be reduced because during the lengthy period of

investigation/trial/appeal spreading over to about 27 years, the appellant must have suffered a lot.

Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and he is acquitted of the charge for the commission of the offence u/s 467 RPC. The

conviction of the appellant, however, for commission of the offence u/s 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 is maintained but the sentence

imposed shall be that he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs 3700/- and in case of default in payment

thereof shall undergo further imprisonment of like nature for a period of one month.

For computing the above period of imprisonment the appellant shall be entitled to set off for the period if any spent by him as an under trial

prisoner during the trial and appeal. The judgment of the trial Court accordingly shall stand partly set aside and partly modified.