IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1362 OF 2003

KULDEEP SHARMA          .... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF H.P. & ANR.         ..... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

1. Appellant,  aggrieved  by  his  conviction  and  sentence  

under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian  

Penal  Code,  1860 (hereinafter  referred to  as  the  “IPC”)  and  

Section  5(2)  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1947  

(hereinafter called as “P.C. Act”) is before us with leave of the  

Court.

2. According  to  the  prosecution,  in  the  year  1984  the  

appellant Kuldeep Sharma and Co-accused Rajinder Sharma  

were  posted  as  Junior  Engineer  and  Assistant  Engineer

respectively at Jubbal Sub-division of the Irrigation and Public  

Health Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh.  

A telegram alleging  malpractices  against  both of  them were  

received on 26th September, 1984 in the Anti-Corruption Unit  

at Shimla.  A preliminary investigation was conducted and on  

that  basis,  First  Information  Report  No.  5/84  was  lodged.  

Investigation revealed that muster roll no. 146 (Ext. PW-1/A)  

for  the period 1st of  July,  1984 to 31st of  July,  1984 which  

pertained to the running and maintenance of flow irrigation  

scheme  was  earlier  given  to  PW-1  Chander  Singh,  Meter  

Reader, who returned with the endorsement ‘blank’ on it to the  

co-accused.  On 29th of August, 1984, co-accused smeared the  

word ‘blank’ with red ink and handed over to PW-2 Dula Ram  

to enter the names of two labourers and to mark them present  

for the month of July, 1984. In the said muster roll, the names  

of Kanshi Ram and Ram Bahadur were recorded by PW-2 Dula  

Ram,  the  then Supervisor  and it  was countersigned  by  the  

appellant.  On the basis of the said entry, wages were paid to  

the  aforesaid  persons.   According  to  the  prosecution  on  

investigation it transpired that the aforesaid labourers did not  

2

work for the period for which they were marked “present” in  

the muster roll.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that Muster Roll No.  

230 (Ext. PW-3/A) for the period 1st September, 1984 to 30th  

September, 1984 pertaining to the repairs and maintenance of  

water  supply  scheme  was  issued  by  the  then  Executive  

Engineer PW-14 D.R.  Gupta to the co-accused who in turn  

endorsed  it  to  the  appellant  herein.   However,  lateron,  co-

accused struck-off  the first  endorsement and endorsed it  to  

Hazari  Nand (PW-8),  the  then Supervisor.   This  muster  roll  

contained the names of Devki Nand, Gursa Ram, Lok Pal and  

Joginder Singh as casual labourers recorded by Hazari Nand  

and  verified  by  the  appellant.   Payments  to  the  aforesaid  

labourers were made by the Assistant Engineer who succeeded  

the co-accused.

4. Sanction for prosecution of the appellant alongwith co-

accused was granted for  offence  punishable  under  Sections  

409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 511 and 120-B of the IPC as  

3

also  for  offence  under  Section  5(2)  of  the  P.C.  Act.   While  

granting  sanction,  the  State  Government  observed  that  the  

appellant entered into criminal conspiracy with the co-accused  

and  prepared  false  muster  roll  no.  146  in  which  names  of  

casual labourers, who were not engaged, inserted.

5. Both  of  them  i.e.  Appellant  Kuldeep  Sharma,  Junior  

Engineer and Co-accused Rajinder Sharma were sent up for  

trial  and  they  were  charged  for  commission  of  the  offence  

under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the IPC and  

Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act.  Appellant, pleaded not guilty and  

claimed to be tried.   

6. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has  

altogether examined 15 witnesses besides a large number of  

documents were exhibited.   The  defence  of  the  appellant  is  

denial  simplicitor  and he termed the  incriminating evidence  

against him as false when examined under Section 313 of the  

Code of Criminal Procedure.  On appraisal of the evidence, the  

Trial  Court  convicted  the  appellant  and  the  co-accused  for  

4

offence under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the  

IPC and Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced them to  

various terms of imprisonment.

7. Appellant  as  also  the  co-accused  aggrieved  by  their  

conviction and sentence preferred separate appeals.  The High  

Court by the impugned judgment dismissed both the appeals  

with some reduction in sentence.   

8. This order will govern the case of the appellant only.

9. Mr. Ashok Kr. Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing  

on behalf of the appellant made attempt to assail the finding of  

the trial court as affirmed by the High Court and while doing  

so contended that in fact the appellant had not certified the  

contents of the muster roll and further no certificate was given  

by him.  However, from the evidence of PW-1, Shri Chander  

Singh,  PW-2  Shri  Dula  Ram  and  PW-14  Shri  D.R.  Gupta,  

Meter Reader, Supervisor and Executive Engineer respectively,  

it is evident that the muster roll was verified by the appellant  

5

herein.  The muster roll has been exhibited which bears the  

signature of the appellant.  PW-14, D.R. Gupta has stated in  

his  evidence  that  the  muster  roll  basically  is  a  document  

which  is  maintained  by  the  Junior  Engineer  in  which  the  

names of the persons engaged and working are shown and on  

that basis the payment is made to the labourers engaged.  The  

witnesses have further stated that muster roll no. 146 and 230  

(Ext. PW1/A and Ext. PW-3/A) respectively were verified and  

countersigned by the appellant.  In that view of the matter,  

there is no escape from the conclusion that it is the appellant  

who had verified and countersigned the muster roll and gave  

false certificate and on that basis wages were disbursed to the  

labourers.   

10. Mr. Panda, then submits that the appellant was a whistle  

blower and in fact  complained about the mal-functioning of  

the  co-accused and was forced to  sign the muster  roll.   In  

support of the submission, reliance has been placed on few  

decisions of this Court.  Mr. Himinder Lal, learned Counsel,  

however,  representing  the  respondent  submits  that  the  

6

appellant  after  having  been  caught  is  raising  the  plea  of  

whistle-blower  and  at  no  point  of  time  he  ever  complained  

about  the  functioning  of  the  Assistant  Engineer,  the  co-

accused Rajinder Sharma.  In this connection, he drew our  

attention to the evidence of  P.W.14,  the Executive  Engineer  

who denied the appellant’s suggestion that any complaint was  

made  to  him  against  the  Assistant  Engineer.   The  plea  of  

whistle-blower has not been stated by the appellant even in  

statement  under  Section  313  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure.   In  fact,  he  had  denied  his  participation  in  the  

crime  in  any  way.   At  no  point  of  time,  did  he  raise  any  

objection  about  the  alleged  coercion  and  threat  by  the  co-

accused. Appellant was not a casual daily wager and could not  

have been removed by the co-accused.   In that view of  the  

matter,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  plea  raised  by  the  

appellant of whistle blower deserves to be rejected.  In view of  

what we have found on fact, it is not necessary to refer to the  

decisions of this Court relied on by the appellant.

7

11. Mr.  Panda,  then  submits  that  the  State  Government  

while granting sanction has taken into account the entry of  

fictitious names of casual labourer in muster roll no. 146 but  

charge  was  framed  in  respect  of  muster-roll  no.  230  and  

therefore  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  is  vitiated  on  this  

ground alone.  This submission need not detain us much. As  

stated earlier, the appellant has been convicted for his role in  

relation to muster  roll  no. 146 and 230.   Admittedly,  while  

sanctioning prosecution, the role of the appellant in relation to  

muster  roll  no.  146  has  been  adverted  to.   Therefore,  his  

conviction can not be held to be illegal only for the reason that  

no reference was made to muster-roll no. 230 in the sanction-

order.

12. Mr. Panda, lastly submits that the occurrence had taken  

place as back in the year 1984 and the appellant had not only  

suffered ordeal of trial and appeal for long 27 years and infact  

lost the job also and in such a situation, the ends of justice  

shall be met if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the  

period already undergone.  It is relevant to state that the High  

8

Court while dismissing the appeal has reduced the substantive  

sentence to one year each for the offence under Section 120-B,  

467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC besides Section 5(2) of the  

P.C. Act.  We are of the opinion that sentence awarded to the  

appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be  

said to be excessive, calling for interference in this appeal.

13.  In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it  

is dismissed accordingly.  

……….………………………………..J.                               ( HARJIT SINGH BEDI )

..........………………………………..J.                                           ( CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD ) NEW DELHI, APRIL  04, 2011.

9