AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Special leave granted. Heard leaned counsel for the parties. The Appellant was convicted for an offence u/s 420 Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(2) and 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that he employed his own son as casual labourer and thereby caused unlawful loss to the Department, as wages were paid to him during the period he was employed.
But it is clear from the evidence that in fact the son of the Appellant did work and it was only for the work done by him that he was paid wages as a casual labourer. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant had the authority to appoint casual labourers and there was no prohibition, to appoint his son as a casual labourer.
In view of these circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant are set aside. The amount of fine, if deposited, shall be refunded. It is expected that if any action in pursuance of the conviction of the Appellant has been taken, the Government will reconsider the case for reinstatement sympathetically. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.