9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused was the Superintendent of Pakistan Section (Pak Unit) of Hindustan Cooperative Life Insurance Society between 12th May 1958 and 7th May 1959. 2. Whether the accused, being entrusted with domination over property in the capacity of a public servant, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of that property. 3. Whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 409 IPC. 4. Whether the respondent could be convicted under Section 403 IPC as an alternative. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Superintendent Position The Special Court established beyond any doubt that the accused served as the Superintendent of the Pakistan Section of Hindustan Cooperative Life Insurance Society, a unit of LIC in Calcutta, during the relevant period. This position, known as "Pak Unit," was confirmed through evidence on record. Issue 2: Criminal Breach of Trust The Special Court found overwhelming evidence, both oral and documentary, showing that the accused, as Superintendent, directly realized premiums in cash from some Pakistani policyholders and misappropriated the amounts after making false entries in relevant registers and account papers. Despite the accused's denial and suggestion that clerks might have received the money, the Special Court concluded that the accused misappropriated the funds. However, it acquitted the accused under Section 409 IPC, reasoning that no money was entrusted to the respondent in his capacity as a public servant. The Special Court also held that no alternative charge could be framed under Section 406 IPC. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Special Court The High Court upheld the Special Court's decision, noting that the accused had no authority to receive cash payments of premiums. It cited three conditions for an offence under Section 409 IPC: 1. The offence is committed by a public servant. 2. The offence is committed in the capacity of a public servant. 3. The property must have been entrusted to the public servant or he had dominion over it in his capacity as a public servant. The High Court observed that the respondent acted beyond his duties as a public servant, and thus, the offence did not fall within the schedule of the Act. Consequently, the trial was deemed without jurisdiction and null and void. Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, holding that the ingredients of the offence under Section 409 IPC were met. The Court emphasized that the creation of an obligation in relation to the property and its subsequent misappropriation are distinct parts of the offence. The respondent misused his official capacity to obtain payments and issued receipts, creating a sufficient nexus between his official capacity and the conduct. The Court held that the entrustment or dominion over the money was obtained by the respondent in his official capacity as a public servant, satisfying the requirements of Section 409 IPC. Issue 4: Conviction under Section 403 IPC The respondent's counsel suggested a conviction under Section 403 IPC due to the long passage of time since the offence and the respondent's age and circumstances. The Supreme Court noted these factors but decided to convict the respondent under Section 409 IPC. Given the offence's age, the Court imposed a less severe sentence than it might have otherwise. Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Special Court and the High Court, and convicted the respondent under Section 409 IPC. The respondent was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. Appeal allowed.
|
