V.N.Deosthali vs State Through Cbi
2009 Latest Caselaw 5200 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              Crl.A.646/1999

%                        Reserved on:      December 11th , 2009
                         Date of Decision: December 15th , 2009

#      V.N.DEOSTHALI                        ..... Petitioner
!                             Through Mr.M.P.Singh, Advocate.
                         versus

$      STATE Through CBI                ..... Respondent
^                              Through Mr.Ashiesh Kumar, standing
                               counsel for the respondent/CBI.

*      CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

       1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers
               may be allowed to see the judgment?      YES

       2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?   YES

       3.      Whether the judgment should be           YES
               reported in the Digest?


: V.K. JAIN, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 12.11.2009

and Order on Sentence dated 18.11.2009, whereby the appellant

was convicted under Sections 11 and Sections 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to

pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for six months in default under Section 11 of Prevention of Crl.A.646.99 Page 1 Corruption Act, 1988. Identical sentence was awarded to him

under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The

sentences were to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant

while working as Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Hamam Street

Branch, Bombay, during the period 1990-91, was dealing with

sales and purchase of securities, bonds etc. in respect of a firm

M/s.Batlivala & Karani and its subsidiary/sister concern Batlival

& Karani Money Markets (Pvt.) Ltd., which had a current

account with the Bank. According to the prosecution, the

appellant travelled from Bombay to Delhi in February, 1991 to

attend a marriage and the cost of the air ticket for his travel was

paid by M/s.Batlivala & Karani Money Market Pvt. Ltd., through

its employee Mr.Adesh Narain, who along with another

employee of his firm Umesh Gupta travelled with the appellant

from Bombay to Delhi on 16.2.1991. This is also the case of the

prosecution that while in Delhi, the appellant stayed at Hotel

Meridian in the night intervening 19/20th February, 1991 and

the boarding and lodging charges amounting to Rs.4134.30 for

his stay in the Hotel were paid by the aforesaid firm through

Mr.Adesh Narayan, who made the payment using his credit card

Crl.A.646.99 Page 2 and the later took reimbursement from the firm. This is also

alleged that while returning from Delhi to Bombay, the appellant

travelled by air and the expenses for the air travel were paid by

Batliwala & Karani/Batliwala & Karani Money Market Private

Limited.

3. Section 11 and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption

Act reads as under:-

11. Public servant obtaining valuable thing, without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant.- Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- (1) A public servant is said to Crl.A.646.99 Page 3 commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-

(d) if he,-

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest."

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant being the Assistant

Manager of UCO Bank, was a public servant at the time offences

are alleged to have been committed by him.

5. In order to prove that the appellant use to transact

business with Batliwala & Karani in his capacity as a public

servant, the prosecution has examined PW-1, Shri P.A.Karkhanis,

PW-3 Shri Umesh Gupta and PW-4 Shri P.M.Ratanakim

6. PW-1 Shri P.A.Kharkhanis was the Senior Manager

Incharge of UCO Bank Branch at Hamam Street Bombay from

3.9.1990 to 18.4.1992 and the appellant was working under him

Crl.A.646.99 Page 4 in that Branch as Assistant Manager. He has stated that

Batliwala & Karani was having Account No.436 with them and

security transactions being carried out in this account were

handled by the appellant. He has identified signatures of the

appellant on the Debit Advice Ex.PW-1/B prepared in respect of

debit of 9,49,90,619.72 in the account of Batliwala & Karani and

Debit Advice Ex.PW-1/C in respect of debit of Rs.7,00,53,008.22.

He has also proved two Credit Advices signed by the appellant in

respect of the credit of Rs.11,96,86,671.23 and 4,98,69,863.01

respectively which are Ex.PW-1/D & E. He has also proved

Ex.PW-1/F which is the receipt issued by the appellant, on the

basis of delivery order of M/s.Batliwala & Karani dated 5.4.1991.

A cost memo was prepared on 5.4.1991 for Rs.4,98,69,863.01,

which is Ex.PW-1/G and is signed by the appellant. He

specifically stated that Batliwala & Karani and UCO Bank were

having official dealings which were being handled by the

appellant.

7. PW-3 Shri Umesh Gupta is an employee of Batliwala &

Karani. He has stated that UCO Bank, Hamam Street, was one

of the bankers of their firm and that he used to visit branch in

connection with delivery of security orders etc. and used to meet

Crl.A.646.99 Page 5 the appellant in the branch. According to him, the appellant also

used to visit their office, on some occasions. He has identified

the signatures of the appellant on the bank receipt Ex.PW-1/8.

According to him, delivery orders Ex.PW-3/A to PW-3/C were

handed over by him to the appellant in the Bank and the voucher

Ex.PW-1/C to Ex.PW-1/E were handed over to him by the

appellant.

8. PW-4 Shri P.M.Ratanakim, Joint Manager, UCO Bank, has

stated that since December, 1990, he was posted at Hamam

Street Branch of UCO Bank and that all the transactions of

securities and shares, including those of Batliwala & Karani

were being dealt with by the appellant. He has identified the

signatures of the appellant on the vouchers Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-

4/D. He has also stated that Umesh Gupta has used to visit their

branch and meet the appellant.

9. In his Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the

appellant has admitted that during the year 1990-91, he was

posted as Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Hamam Street and was

looking sales and purchase of securities, bonds, etc. He has also

admitted that Batliwala & Karani was having a current account

Crl.A.646.99 Page 6 with their branch and that security transactions carried out in

that account were handled by him in his official capacity. He has

also admitted the Debit Advice Ex.PW-1/B issued in respect of

debit of Rs.94990619.72 in the account of Batliwala & Company.

Regarding Debit Advice Ex.PW-1/C, Credit Advice Ex.PW-1/D

and Ex.PW-1/E and receipt Ex.PW-1/F, he claimed that he did not

remember. He has also admitted his signatures on the vouchers

Ex.PW-4/A to Ex.PW-4/D which pertain to Batliwala & Karani.

Thus, the prosecution has fully proved and the appellant has also

not disputed that he was having official transactions with

Batliwala & Karani in his capacity as a public servant. This

factual position was not disputed before me during arguments.

10. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had travelled

from Bombay to Delhi and had then gone back from Delhi to

Bombay in February, 1991. The case of the prosecution is that

the appellant travelled by air from Bombay to Delhi as well as on

return from Delhi to Bombay, whereas the defence taken by the

appellant that he had travelled by train and not by air. The case

of the prosecution is that in Delhi, he stayed in Hotel Meridian

whereas according to the appellant, he stayed with the friend

whose marriage he had to attend in Delhi. This is not the case of

Crl.A.646.99 Page 7 the appellant that though he did travel by air from Bombay to

Delhi and Delhi to Bombay, he himself had borne the expenses

incurred on air travel. This is also not his case that though

initially the cost of his air travel was borne by Shri Adesh

Narain, employee of Batliwala & Karani, he later on repaid that

amount to Mr.Adesh Narayan or to the firm. This is not the case

of the appellant that though he had stayed in the Hotel Meridian,

he himself had borne the expenses of his stay in that Hotel. This

is also not his case that though initially the expenses of his stay

in Hotel Meridian were borne by Shri Adesh Narayan, he later

on returned that amount to him or to his firm.

11. PW 3 Umesh Gupta has stated that in February, 1991 he

along with Avdesh Narain and the appellant came from Bombay

to Delhi by air and the air fare for the journey was paid by M/s

Batliwala and Karani Money Market Pvt. Ltd. He further stated

that on 20th or 21st February he along with the appellant

returned to Bombay by air and the tickets for the journey were

purchased by Adesh Narain. Counter foils of the tickets are Ex.

PW3/I & J.

Crl.A.646.99 Page 8

12. PW 6 Avdesh Narain has stated that he was working as an

officer with M/s Batli Wala and Karani Money Market Pvt. Ltd. in

its Delhi office during the period 1990-1992 and used to visit

Bombay for the official work. He has further stated that in

February, 1991 he returned from Bombay to Delhi by air along

with Umesh Gupta and the appellant and the expenses of air

travel of the accused on that occasion were met by their

company. According to him, he had made arrangement for stay

of the appellant in Meridian Hotel and all the expenses for stay

were borne by the company. He has claimed that the payment

for stay of the accused was made through his credit card. He

further stated that in February, 1991 he had taken the appellant

to Narula, Connaught Place for lunch and paid the bill through

his credit card. He also entertained the appellant at Ashoka

Hotel and Hotel Hyat, New Delhi and paid the bills through his

credit card. According to him, the tickets for return journey of

the appellant and Umesh Gupta from Bombay to Delhi were

purchased by him through his credit card. He stated that

whatever amount he spent on the entertainment and journey of

the appellant, was reimbursed to him by the company, vide

voucher Ex.PW2/B and PW2/A, which bear his signature in token

Crl.A.646.99 Page 9 of receipt of cheque from the company. He further stated that

the registration card of hotel Meridian Ex.PW1/A was filled up by

him for the appellant, who appended his signature on the card at

encircled portion A in his presence. Ex.PW6/A is the carbon

copy of the credit voucher pertaining to his credit card account

through which he made payment to hotel Meridian.

Ex.PW6/B&C are the original cheques for reimbursement

delivered to him by M/s Batliwala and Karani Money Market Pvt.

Ltd. Ex.PW6/C is the bill submitted by him for claiming

reimbursement. He was reimbursed vide Ex.PW6/E. He also

stated that the appellant did not reimburse the company for the

air tickets and expenses for stay in the hotel.

13. PW 11 Shri S. Mukherjee has stated that in February, 1991

he was working in Hotel Le Meridian, New Delhi. He has stated

that the registration card Ex.PW11/A of Hotel Le Meridian was

signed by Ms. Pervinder Kaur, Reservation Asstt. at point A. He

has further stated that Shri V.N. Deoshthli had stayed in

Meridian hotel from 19th February, 1991 to 20th February, 1991

in Room No.516 and payment for the stay amounting to

Rs.4134.30 was made through credit card

No.4563981002312025 pertaining to Avdesh Narain vide credit

Crl.A.646.99 Page 10 card slip Ex.PW6/A. He has also identified the signature of Ms.

Madhu Kohli, Lobby Manager of Meridian Hotel on Bill

Ex.PW11/B.

14. In his statement under section 313 of Cr.PC the appellant

admitted that he had come to Delhi from Bombay in February,

1991. He further claimed that he did not travel with Umesh

Gupta and Avdesh Narain by air and had in fact come by train.

He denied having stayed in hotel Meridian and claimed that he

had returned to Bombay by train. He denied the signature at

portion A onthe registration card of Meridian Hotel Ex. PW1/A.

He also stated that in Delhi he had stayed with his friend Rajiv in

Rajouri Garden as he had come to attend the function at their

place. DW1 Shri Raj Kumar Gurshani has stated that in

February, 1991 the appellant had come to Delhi to attend his

marriage. He firstly stated that the appellant has stayed at his

residence but then stated that he had stayed in the house of his

friend, which is situated opposite to his house and had been

taken by him for marriage purposes.

15. I see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3 Shri

Umesh Gupta and PW6 Shri Avdesh Narain as regards travel of

Crl.A.646.99 Page 11 the appellant by air firstly from Bombay to Delhi and then from

Delhi to Bombay, when their testimony finds full corroboration

from the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution.

Ex.PW2/C is the credit card slip whereby payment of Rs.3558/-

was made by Shri Avdesh Narain to Indian Airlines on 19 th

February, 1991. Ex. PW2/B is the voucher whereby payment of

Rs.3558/- was made to Shri Avdesh Narain vide cheque

No.755311 in respect of air tieckets for Mr. Umesh Gupta and

the appellant Vinayak Deosthali. The oral deposition of PW2

Shri Umesh Gupta and PW6 Shri Avdesh Narain, coupled with

the documentary evidence duly proved by them shows that the

expenses for the journey performed by the appellant from

Bombay to Delhi on 20th February, 1991 were borne by M/s

Batliwala and Karani Money Market Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW3/I is the

counter foil of the air ticket whereby the appellant travelled

from Delhi to Bombay on 20th February, 1991 by Indian Airlines

flight IC 807. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant that neither the original ticket nor the Boarding Card

of the appellant has been produced by the prosecution to prove

the alleged air travel. The Boarding Card remains with the

passenger and, therefore, it was not possible for the prosecution

Crl.A.646.99 Page 12 to produce the same. The air ticket is also delivered to the

airlines at the time of obtaining the Boarding Card. The counter

foil of the ticket has, however, been produced and is admissible

in evidence, this being the carbon copy prepared at the same

time when the original was prepared. Ex.PW9/C and PW9/D are

the booking cards whereby the tickets were booked for the

travel of the appellants, Mr. Avdesh Narain and Mr. Umesh

Gupta by M/s Batliwala and Karani Money Market Pvt. Ltd. and

these documents were seized by PW 9, Inspector Hardeep Singh

of CBI.

16. Primary evidence is defined in section 62 of the Indian

Evidence Act and explanation 2 provides that where a number

of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case

of printing, lithography, or photography, each is primary

evidence of the contents of the rest. Since the carbon copies of

a document is prepared at the same time when the original is

prepared, by way of a common process of preparing the

document, this will be deemed to be primary evidence within the

meaning of section 62 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, Ex.PW3/I

is as good as the original ticket. It was submitted by the learned

counsel for the appellant that this document pertains to one

Crl.A.646.99 Page 13 Vinayak Devashali and not the appellant Vinayak Deosthali. I am

unable to accept this contention. This document has to be read

along with the oral deposition of the PW3 and PW6, coupled with

other documentary evidence including payment by Mr. Avdesh

Narain by credit card and reimbursement of that amount to him

by M/s Batliwala and Karani Money Market Pvt. Ltd.

17. The ticket Ex.PW3/I showing the name of the passenger as

Mr. Vinayak „Devashali‟ and Ex. PW3/B in respect of Umesh

Gupta have been made at the same time vide CF0101126 and

the payment of both the tickets has also been made together as

is evident from form of payment which is shown as TPGB

4563981002312025 on both the tickets. These particulars when

viewed in the light of oral and documentary evidence produced

by the prosecution, leave no reasonable doubt that the counter

foil Ex.PW3/I pertains to the appellant and inadvertently the

letter „t‟ has been left out while typing the name of the appellant,

thereby turning „Deosthali‟ into „Deoshali.‟

18. The evidence produced by the prosecution as regards

travel of the appellant from Bombay to Delhi and from Delhi to

Bombay by air has also to be considered in the light of the fact

Crl.A.646.99 Page 14 that though the appellant claims to have travelled by train from

Bombay to Delhi as well as from Delhi to Bombay, he has neither

produced any train ticket nor summoned any document from

Indian Railways to prove that any person of his name had

travelled from Bombay to Delhi and/or from Delhi to Bombay on

the dates he is alleged to have travelled by air. In fact, the

appellant has not even given the numbers of the trains by which

he claimed to have travelled from Bombay to Delhi and from

Delhi to Bombay. Had the appellant given even train number to

the investigating agency, it could have verified, from Indian

Railways, as to whether any person by the name of the appellant

had travelled through train from Bombay to Delhi on 16 th

February and from Delhi to Bombay on 20th February. I am,

therefore, in full agreement with the learned trial court that the

prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the

appellant had travelled from Bombay to Delhi and Delhi to

Bombay by air and that the expenses for his air travel were

borne by Batliwala and Karani Money Market Pvt. Ltd./ Batliwala

and Karani.

19. As regards the stay of the appellant in Hotel Meridian, the

deposition of PW11 coupled with the Registration Form of

Crl.A.646.99 Page 15 Meridian hotel Ex.PW1/14 would show that a person by the

name of V. Deosthli had stayed in hotel Meridian between the

night intervening 19-20th February, 1991. The deposition of PW6

Shri Avdesh Narain would show that this Registration Form was

filled up by him. Shri Avdesh Narain has specifically stated that

appellant had signed the registration from Ex.PW1/H at point A

in his presence. PW1 Shri P.A. Karkhanis under whom the

appellant was working in Uco Bank, Hamam, Bombay has

specifically identified the signature of the appellant at point A at

Ex.PW1/H. This witness has identified the signature of the

appellant on a number of other documents as well, which have

not been disputed by the appellant. Since the appellant was

working under him in the same branch, he must have been

seeing the documents written and signed by the appellant and,

therefore, was in a position to identify his signature. During

cross-examination of this witness, no suggestion was given to

him that the registration form Ex.PW1/H was not signed by the

appellant or that he was not conversant with the signature of

the appellant. Similarly, during cross-examination of PW6 Shri

Avdesh Narain, no suggestion was given to him that Ex.PW 1/H

was not signed by the appellant at point A. In fact, no

Crl.A.646.99 Page 16 suggestion was given to him that the appellant had not stayed in

hotel Meridian in the night intervening 19-20 February, 1991.

When a witness deposes a particular fact and no suggestion to

the contrary is given to him in cross-examination, the party

against whom the deposition is made, is deemed to have

admitted that fact.

20. Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:-

"47. Opinion as to hand- writing, when relevant.- When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.

Explanation.-- A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him."

Crl.A.646.99 Page 17

21. The handwriting of a person can be proved by one or

more of the following modes:-

(1)by calling as a witness a person who wrote the

document.

(2) by a person who saw it written or signed or;

(3) by a person who is qualified to express an opinion as to

the handwriting by virtue of s. 47;

(4) by a comparison of the handwriting as provided by s.

73;

(5) by admission of the person against whom the document

is tendered.

(6) by expert evidence under s. 45.

(7) by internal evidence afforded by the contents of the

document.

In Gulzar Ali vs. State of H.P., 1998(2) SCC 192, the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:-

"It must be remembered that expert evidence regarding handwriting is not the only mode by which genuineness of a document can be established. The Crl.A.646.99 Page 18 requirement in Section 67 of the Evidence Act is only that the handwriting must be proved to be that of the person concerned. In order to prove the identity of the handwriting any mode not forbidden by law can be resorted to. Of course, two modes are indicated by law in Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act. The former permits expert opinion to be regarded as relevant evidence and the latter permits opinion of any person acquainted with such handwriting to be regarded as relevant evidence."

22. Since PW1 is a person acquainted with the handwriting

and signature of the appellant, his opinion as regards signature

at point A of PW1/H is relevant under section 47 of the

Evidence Act. In fact, the signature of the appellant on

Ex.PW1/H also stand proved by PW6, in whose presence, he

signed the document at Point-A. In view of deposition of the two

witnesses, there can be no good reason for not accepting the

case of the prosecution that it was the appellant who had signed

Ex.PW1/H at point A.

23. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant

that on Ex.PW1/H the name of the bank has been shown as PNB,

whereas the appellant was working with UCO Bank. He has also

pointed out that no evidence has been led by the prosecution to

Crl.A.646.99 Page 19 link the appellant with B1/12, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi

which is the address given in Ex. PW1/H. PW6 is the person who

filled up the registration form Ex.PW1/H. During cross-

examination he was not asked as to why the name of the bank

was given as PNB instead of Uco Bank . He was not asked as to

who had given the address of the appellant as B1/12, Safdarjung

Enclave, New Delhi. Since there was no cross-examination of

PW6 on these aspects, the prosecution did not get an

opportunity to explain why the name of the bank was shown as

PNB and who had given the address of the guest at the time of

filling up the Registration Form Ex.PW1/H. Therefore, no

advantage can be derived by the appellant on account of these

unexplained particulars. It has to be kept in mind that the

relations between the appellant and Batliwala and Karani

Money Market Pvt. Ltd. must be cordial at the time when the

appellant travelled from Bombay to Delhi and stayed in Meridian

hotel and all the expenses in connection with his visit were

borne by that firm. It is quite probable that the appellant, in

agreement with PW6, wanted to conceal his identity to the

extent it was possible since being a public servant he knew that

he was committing an offence by accepting hospitality from

Crl.A.646.99 Page 20 Batliwala and Karani Money Market Pvt. Ltd. and for this reason

he gave wrong name of the bank and a fictitious address when

the registration from was filled up by PW6 and was signed by the

appellant. I, however, need not dilate much on this issued, in

view of overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution.

24. The plea taken by the appellant as regards the place of his

stay in Delhi is that he had stayed with his friend Rajiv in Rajouri

Garden. DW1, who is the friend with whom the appellant claims

to have stayed in Delhi has, however, given his name as Raj

Kumar Gurshani and his address as 20/25, West Patel Nagar.

He, therefore, appears to be a person different from the person

named by the appellant in his statement under section 313 of

Cr.PC. This is not the case either of the appellant or of DW1 that

he was known as Raj Kumar as well as Rajiv. This is also not

the case either of appellant or of DW1 that he was earlier

residing at Rajouri Garden. More importantly, even DW1

claimed that the appellant not stayed in his house but had stayed

in the house of his friend which he had taken for marriage

purposes. In his statement under section 313 of Cr.PC the

appellant did not claim that he had stayed in the house of a

friend of DW1. His case was that he has stayed with his friend

Crl.A.646.99 Page 21 Rajiv in Rajouri Garden. On the other hand as per DW1 the

house in which the appellant stayed was opposite to his house.

The person whose house DW1 claims to have taken for his

marriage has not been produced in the witness box. In these

circumstances, the defence taken by the appellant as regards

place of his stay in Delhi is not at all believable.

No other submission was made during arguments.

25. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I am

satisfied that the appellant while working as Assistant Manager

Uco Bank, Hamama, Bombay had official dealings with Batliwala

and Karani Money Market Pvt. Ltd. and that he travelled from

Bombay to Delhi and from Delhi to Bombay by air and the cost of

his travel by air was borne by Batliwala and Karani Money

Market Pvt. Ltd./Batliwala and Karani. I am also satisfied that

the appellant had stayed in Hotel Meridian in the night

intervening 19-20th February, 1991 and that the expenses for his

stay on the hotel were borne by Batliwala and Karani Money

Market Pvt. Ltd. Since the prosecution has proved the above

noted allegations, I am not going into deposition of PW6 to the

effect that he had also entertained the appellant, at various

Crl.A.646.99 Page 22 hostels and restaurants during his stay in Delhi and Batliwana

and Karani had reimbursed him for that expenditure. The

appellant has, therefore, been rightly convicted under section 11

and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. Since the Trial Court has already taken a

very fair and reasonable view in the matter of sentence, there is

no scope for reduction of the sentence imposed upon him.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith before the trial

court to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence imposed

upon him. The file of the trial court be sent back within 3 days,

along with a copy of this judgment.

                                                     V.K. JAIN,J


DECEMBER 15, 2009
'sn/RS'




Crl.A.646.99                                               Page 23