Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BAHADURGARH versus KRISHNAN BEHARI AND ORS.

Decided
19 February 1996
Judges listed
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 827 · 1996 INSC 279
Also cited as
  • (1996) 2 SCC 714 (21 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1996 SC 1249 (16 citing judgments)
  • (1996) SCC(L&S) 539 (4 citing judgments)
  • JT 1996 (3) SC 96 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 5 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 827, margin F

The respondent was a clerk in the Municipality. He was alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1548.78p by falsifying the accounts. He was prosecuted in a criminal case and convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced. On appeal, the conviction was altered from Section 409 to Section 468 of the Indian penal Code. Section 468 reads :

p. 827, margin F

"Whoever commits forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend

pp. 827–828, margin G

to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine."

p. 828, margin A

In view of the said punishment, the Municipal Committee dismissed the respondent. The respondent filed an appeal before the Director of Local Bodies who, while upholding the correctness of the action, reduced the punishment to stoppage of four increments and has also directed that the period during which the respondent was out of service should be treated as extra-ordinary leave. An appel filed by the Municipal Committee to the Commissioner was dismissed as incompetent. A writ petition filed by the Municipal Committee was also dismissed in limine by the High Court.

p. 828, margin A

It is obvious that the respondent has been convicted of a serious crime and it is a clear case attracting under proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases invoMng corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. The Director had interferred with the punishment under a total mis-apprehension of the relevant factors to be borne in mind in such a case.

p. 828, margin C

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Judgments of the High Court, Commissioner and the Director are set aside and the order of the Municipal Cotnmittee dismissing the respondent is restored.

p. 828, margin E

No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 828, margin E